Thomas, J.

A question of law has been mooted in this appeal, whether S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') would preveJlt^eorjit from granting injunction in respect Of proceedings pending in the same court. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the decision in Raghavan v. Sankaran (1992 (2) KLT 959) rendered by a learned single judge of this Court is not correct law.

2. Appellant is the third defendant in a suit for partition instituted by her two brothers-in-law. The impugned order is a temporary injunction which restrains the appellant from proceeding with an earlier suit filed by her (O.S.No.104/86) in the same court. More facts are these:

3. Suit properties belonged to the father-in-law of the appellant (Chami by name) who died in 1978. Chami was survived by his widow and four children. Appellant is the widow of Sahadevan, one of the sons of Chami. (Sahadevan died in 1984). Appellant filed O.S. No. 104/86 in the Sub Court, Palakkad against her mother-in-law for partition of the present suit property. In the said suit present plaintiffs were not parties, as the appellant then contended mat there was an oral partition in the family iri