1. The first question in this appeal is whether a subordinate Court in British India has power to restrain by injunction a party from prosecuting a suit in a foreign Court (though within the British Empire). The Chartered High Courts have such power, not by reason of Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, Civil P.C., but by reason of the equity jurisdiction they inherited from the old Supreme Courts: Rash Behary Dey v. Bhawani Charu Bose [1907] 34 Cal. 97 and Munglechand v. Gopalram [1907] 34 Cal. 101. Those decisions were followed in Uderan Kesaji v. Hyderally [1909] 33 Bom. 469, though the remarks of Woodroffe, J., in Hukumchand Boid v. [1909] 33 Bom. 469; Kamalanand Singh [1906] 33 Cal. 927 about the inherent powers of a Court now governed by Section 151, Civil P.C., were also relied on. But it is noteworthy that Woodroffe, J., himself in Rash Bihari Dey v. Bhawani Chan Bose [1907] 34 Cal. 97 does not rely on the inherent powers of a Court but only on the equity jurisdiction inherited from the Supreme Courts. The decision in Tikanchand Santokchand v. Santokchand Singh [1920] 24 C.W.N. 735 and Mulchand Baichand v. Gill and Coy [1920] 44 Bom. 283 do not carry the matter further. Mr. Pat