judgments of this Court reported in (1908) 10 Bom LR 1141,
and a judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in (1907)
ILR 34 Cal 97 and also another judgment of Bombay High
Court reported in AIR 1943 Bombay page 206, had held that
the Court while exercising jurisdiction on the original
side has jurisdiction to grant an order of injunction
restraining the Defendant from proceeding the suit in the
sub-ordinate Court and more particularly, the Small Causes
Court at Bombay, functioning as a Court of exclusive
jurisdiction under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, 1947.
He also relied on the judgment of another Learned Single
Judge of this Court in the case of Babu Rasul Mujawar vs.
Sadashiv Govind Hazare & Ors. reported in AIR 2006 Bombay
305 in support of the said submission. He submitted that
another Single Judge of this Court, however, had taken a
contrary view, in the view taken by the Learned Single
Judge in the case of William Jacks & Co. (India) Ltd
(supra) without referring to the said judgment and had
observed that the stay could not be granted to the
proceedings which were pending in the Small Causes Court by
this Court while functioning on the original side. He
submitted that firstly judgment in the case of William
Jacks & Co. (India) Ltd. was not brought to the notice of
the Learned Single Judge in the said Notice of Motion and,
secondly, it was submitted that the prayer which was asked
for in the said Notice of Motion, was stay of proceedings
in the Small Causes Court and, therefore, the stay was
rightly not granted since even in the case of William Jacks
