provides, in pertinent part, that “[ejxcept where exclusive original jurisdiction of an action or proceeding is ... vested in another court of this Commonwealth, the courts of common pleas' shall have unlimited original jurisdiction of all actions and proceedings, including all actions and proceedings heretofore cognizable by law or usage in the courts of common pleas.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 931(a). While section 931(a) acts as a catch-all provision for the jurisdiction of courts of common pleas, unlike section 721, it does not specifically reference mandamus actions. Instead, the Supreme,Court’s jurisdiction over such actions can be traced back to the King’s Bench and has been consistently recognized by the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. See, e.g., In re Bruno, 627 Pa. 505, 101 A.3d 635 (2014) (<HOLDING>); Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board v. Butz,
recognizing the supreme courts longstanding jurisdiction over writs of prohibition and mandamus to courts of inferior jurisdiction recognizing that the supreme courts earliest uses of the kings bench powers  commonly implicated the common law writs of mandamus and prohibition holding that the superior court may not issue writs of prohibition to review an order denying recusal before final judgment holding mandamus under the all writs act 28 u s c  1651 improper but expressing no opinion on relief under the federal mandamus statute 1361 holding that district courts have power to issue writs of prohibition to administrative agencies to prevent them from exceeding their jurisdiction