SUDHANSU SEKHAR GANGULY, J. ( 1 ) - This is an application u/s. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure preferred by the defendant / petitioner against order No. 30 dated 3. l2. 86 passed by Shri S. K. Ghosal, Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta, in Commercial Suit No. 200 of 1985. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY in terms of a contract entered through M/s Noble Corporation of 1-A, Vansittarat Row, Calcutta the plain-tiff-opposite party, a company having its registered office at 75-C, Park Street, Calcutta, supplied goods to the defendant-petitioner, a firm carrying on business at Shikohabad within the district of Manipuri, U. P. The agreed terms-amongst others-were that in default of payment within thirty days of delivery, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest @ 20% per annum and that in default of furnishing Central Sales Tax "c" Form in respect of the bills, the petitioner would be liable to pay the amount of Sales Tax. It appears that by five bills prepared by the said Noble Corporation the plaintiff-opposite party has claimed Rs. 2,93,356,99. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the defendant-petitioner the plaintiff-opposite party had charged its excise duty amounting to Rs. 69,859. 63 at the rate of 40% together with special duty on the excise duty amounting to Rs. 3,492. 74 in all the aforesaid bills instead of Rs. 36,673. 88 at the rate of 20% at which the said dues were payable together with special duty and actually paid by the plaintiff-opposite party. In the same way Central Sales Tax which at the rate of 4% of Rs. 36,673. 88 come to Rs. 1,466. 95 was shown double the amount in the bills. The defendant-petitioner urges that in this way the plaintiff-opposite party has charged it Rs. 38,140. 63 in excess and further that since the actual amount due comes to Rs. 2,55,216. 36 after deducting Rs. 38,140. 63 from the billed amount of Rs. 2,93,356. 99 while the petitioner-defendant had allegedly paid Rs. 2,64,287. 52 to the defendant-opposite party, it has allegedly paid Rs. 9,071. 20 in, excess of what was due from it. ( 4 ) IT is urged further that an amount of Rs. 21,384. 80 became due to Noble Corporation as their commission and the petitioner-defendant having paid Rs. 12,508. 54 to the said Corporation only a sum of Rs. 8,876. 36 remains due to it. 9,071. 20 in, excess of what was due from it. ( 4 ) IT is urged further that an amount of Rs. 21,384. 80 became due to Noble Corporation as their commission and the petitioner-defendant having paid Rs. 12,508. 54 to the said Corporation only a sum of Rs. 8,876. 36 remains due to it. The petitioner-defendant contends that on adjustment of the said amount against the amount of Bs. 9,076. 26 over paid by the defendant-petitioner as amount of Rs. 1. 95. 01 remains due to the defendant-petitioner from the plain-tiff-opposite party. ( 5 ) IT appears that on the above facts the defendant petitioner has instituted a suit being No. 281 of 1985 in the court of the Munsif at Sikohabad on 19. 7. 85 against the plaintiff-opposite party as defendant No. 1 and Noble Corporation as defendant No. 2 for recovery of the aforementioned sum of Rs. 195. 01 and also for rendition of accounts etc. It appears that the plaintiff-opposite party has already failed its written statement in that suit. ( 6 ) THE case of the plaintiff-opposite party seems to be that it has sold goods worth of Rs. 2,92,366. 99 to the defendant-petitioner and that after adjustment of the payment, made by the latter towards the said dues a sum of Rs. 39,079. 37 remained due from the defendant-petitioner to it. As the defendant-petitioner failed to pay the said sum within the stipulated time the plaintiff-opposite party became entitled to recover interest on the said sum at the rate of 20% per annum. On its Noble Corporation raised the bills for interest amounting to Rs. 41,502. 77 upto the period of 31. 1. 85. Thus the defendant-petitioner became liable to pay a sum of Rs. 39,079. 37 and another sum of Rs. 41,502. 77 towards interest aggregating to Rs. 80,572. 14. The plaintiff-opposite party also failed to furnish the Central Sales Tax "c" Form as per agreement and thus made itself liable to pay Sales Tax to the tune of Rs. 14,031. 91. Thus in all a sum of Rs. 98,478. 88 has become due from the side of the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-opposite party. ( 7 ) ON the basis of these allegations the plaintiff-opposite party has filed a Commercial Suit being No. 200 of 1985 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta for recovery of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 98,478. 91. Thus in all a sum of Rs. 98,478. 88 has become due from the side of the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff-opposite party. ( 7 ) ON the basis of these allegations the plaintiff-opposite party has filed a Commercial Suit being No. 200 of 1985 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta for recovery of the aforementioned amount of Rs. 98,478. 88 together with interest, etc. , from the defendant-petitioner. ( 8 ) THE present defendant-petitioner has also filed its written statement in that suit and its contention therein are quite the same as its contentions as per its plaint filed before the Munsif's Court at Sikohabad. ( 9 ) IT appears that plaintiff-opposite party filed an application for temporary in injunction before the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta for restraining the defendant-petitioner from proceeding with the suit pending in the Court of the learned Munsif at Sikohabad till the disposal of the Commercial Suit No 200 of 1985. Finding that the facts and law involved in both the suits are quite the same and further that his Court has a higher pecuniary jurisdiction the learned Judge, 5th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta has allotted the prayer of the plaintiff-opposite party under Section 151 C. P. C. Hence, this Revisional Application from the side of the defendant-petitioner ( 10 ) IT is urged from the side of the defendant-petitioner that the suit filed at Sikohabad being the earlier one in point of time the defendant-petitioner should never have been restrained from proceeding with the suit pending before the learned Munsif at Sikohabad. On the other hand it urged from the side of the plaintiff-opposite party that the order has been very rightly passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta. ( 11 ) WE do not think that the order passed by the, learned Judge can be supported for the reasons given by him. This is because Section 41 (b) of the Specific Relief Act bars the granting of an injunction restraining a party from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in a court not subordinate to that from which the injunction is sought. As it has been observed by the Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs. United industrial Bank Limited and Ors. As it has been observed by the Supreme Court in Cotton Corporation of India Limited vs. United industrial Bank Limited and Ors. A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 1272, ordinarily such an injunction order cannot be granted by a court with a view to restraining any person from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding and this is subject to only one exception enacted in larger public interest, namely, a superior court can injunct a person from instituting or prosecuting an action in a subordinate court with a view to regulating the proceeding before the subordinate courts. The Munsif's Court at Sikohabad is not. a court subordinate to the City Civil Court, Calcutta. Section 41 (b) of the Specific Belief Act stands, therefore, as a bar in (his case and the bar cannot be by-passed by invoking the provisions of Section 151 of the C. P. Code: ( 12 ) WE agree with the learned Judge, however, that the lis should be rather be fought in the City Civil Court since that court will be in a position to consider the case of the defendant-petitioner and will be in a position to grant it adequate relief, whereas the learned Munsif's Court at Sikohabad will not be in a position to entertain the suit of the plaintiff-opposite party or grant it its desired relief. In the interest of justice both the suits between the parties ought to be heard and disposed of by the same court. ( 13 ) UNDER the circumstances stated the plaintiff-opposite party may - if so advised - apply before the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad under the provisions of Section 23 (3) of the C. P. C. for transferring the suit pending in the court of the learned Munsif at Sikohabad to the jurisdiction of this Court so that it can be tried together with the suit pending in the 5th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta, ( 14 ) IN view of the aforesaid reasons the present Revisional Application is hereby allowed and the order complained against is hereby set aside without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff in Commercial Suit No. 200 of 1985 to take any other steps in accordance with law. ( 15 ) THERE will be order as to costs. Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be immediately granted. Mookerjee - C. J. I agree, application allowed. .