JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---On June 12, 1973, the lower Court granted an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants, and their servants and agents from proceeding with the Arbitration Case No. ABN/1281 of 1972 pending before the Officer appointed to Assist the Registrar until hearing notice and until further orders. This Order is challenged by the defendants-petitioners contending, inter alia that such an order cannot be passed in view of the provisions of section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 2. Mr. I.S. Khemani, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that this Court (Kantawala, C.J.) in (Tardeo Air Condition Market v. Satnarayan G. Vyas)1, 1976 U.C.R. (Bom.) 452 in Civil Revision Application No. 192 of 1974, decided on February 2, 1976, has held that such an order is without jurisdiction. Mr. Khemani also cited another authority of this Court reported in (Udvoy Mandir Premises Co-operative Societies Ltd. v. M/s. Contessa Knit Wear)2, 76 Bom.L.R. 735. 3. It is obvious that the Court should not as a matter of rule, interfere with the proceedings in another Court. If the proceedings are pending before Tribunal or before an Officer on Special Duty under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the Small Cause Court should not grant an injunction restraining the parties from proceeding with that matter. 4. Mr. G.G. Pherwani, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that it was merely an ex parte injunction and the petitioner has challenged the said order in this Court. He ought to have appeared before the Small Causes Court and contested the proceedings. The lower Court has merely passed an ad interim injunction against the defendants. In such circumstances, this Court should not interfere while exercising its extraordinary powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. There is no merit in the submission of Mr. Pherwani. This Court has taken the view, as referred to above, that the Court should not grant even an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants not to participate or proceed with the proceedings pending in any Court and that such an order would be initially without jurisdiction. Having regard to the observations made in both the authorities referred to above. I am in respectful agreement with taken by this Court. In that view of the matter, this Special Civil Application will have to be allowed. 6. Having regard to the observations made in both the authorities referred to above. I am in respectful agreement with taken by this Court. In that view of the matter, this Special Civil Application will have to be allowed. 6. In the result, the Rule granted in this Special Civil Application is made absolute with costs. -----