The main legal point established in the judgment is that S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act does not preclude the grant of injunction to restrain a party from prosecuting a proceeding before the same court, emphasizing the inherent jurisdiction of every court to protect itself from abuse of its own process.

The petitioners are plaintiffs in O.S.No. 356 of 1991 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Thrissur. The respondent-defendant holds a decree for possession against the petitioner. The decree was passed by the subordinate court, Trissur in O.S.32 of 1968. By an application I. A1175/1991 the petitioner sought interim injunction restraining the defendants from recovering possession in execution of the decree in O.S.32/1968. The Subordinate Judge, Trissur, dismissed the LA. 1175/91. The petitioners' C.M.A. 57 of 1991, was dismissed by the District Judge, Trissur. According to the learned District Judge, the court which made the decree in O.S.32/1968 was not subordinate to the court, which was called upon to grant the injunction. Therefore S.41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act precludes the grant of injunction. The plaintiff challenges the legality of these orders. In this judgment the parties are referred by their nomenclature in the suit.

2. The decree in O.S.32/1968 sought to be executed was made by the same court from which the injunction to prevent the execution is sought. The question, therefore is whether S.41(b) applies, to a case in which the court from which injunction is sought, is the same court which made the decree execution of which is sought to be prevented.

3. Clause (b) of S.41 of the Act lays down that an injunction cannot be granted to restrain any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court "not subordinate" to that from which the injunction is sought. There must be a proceeding sought to be prevented and such proceedings must have been instituted or is being prosecuted in a court which is not subordinate to the court where the subsequent proceedings are instituted. "Not subordinate" are significant words. Courts are of (a) subordinate jurisdiction, (b) superior jurisdiction or (c) co-ordinate jurisdiction. The court of the subordinate judge, Thrissur, is not superior to the court of subordinate judge, Thrissur. It is the same court. It is also not subordinate to the same court. Coordinate means equal, of the same rank, or of importance. Since two equals cannot be subordinate to each other, it follows that there is no subordination between courts of coordinate jurisdiction. "Co-ordinate" necessarily means "not subordinate". The question whether Court A is subordinate, arises only in the context of another court Bin relation to which its status is to be decided. It therefore follows that the words "not subordinate" or "co-ordinate" have no application where there is only one court under consideration. Therefore in a case where both the proceedings are instituted in-the same court the question even of "co-ordinate" status does not arise, for, there is only one court under consideration. It is therefore illogical even to consider whether the same court is subordinate to itself.

4. The question boils down to this. Can a court grant an injunction to restrain a person from instituting or prosecuting proceedings before itself The sub court of Thrissur is certainly not subordinate to itself because it is "itself' and not its subordinate. This is very simple. But the controversy is created by the words "not subordinate" used in S.41(b) of the Act. The question not free from doubt, has not yet been judicially resolved. That is why the Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Ltd. v. United Industrial Bank Ltd. & others (AIR 1983 SC 1272) characterised this controversy as "an unresolved controversy." The Calcutta High Court in Ram Sadan Biswas v. Mathura Mohan Hazra & others (AIR 1925 Cal.233 and the Patna High Court in Radha Madhab Jinu Thakur and another v. Rajendra Prasad Bose & Others (AIR 1933 Pat. 250) had no hesitation in holding that the prohibition under clause (b)'of S.41 of the. Specific Relief Act does not apply to the grant of injunction to restrain a party from prosecuting a proceeding before itself.

5. The rationale of these decisions is two fo