JUDGMENT : K.M. DAYAL, J. 1. The present second appeal has been filed by the State of U.P. against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court restraining the State Government from recovering the disputed amount of Rs. 13,000/- along with the interest etc. from the Defendant by his arrest or detention. 2. The admitted facts between the parties are that the Plaintiff obtained a loan from the Director of Industries, Government of U.P. for industrial purposes. The loan was against the mortgage of a house i.e. Immovable property. 3. It is not disputed before me that the loan has not been utilised for the purposes it was taken and was misutilised. U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Does) Act, 1972 provides that the amount of any such loan could be recovered under the provisions of the aforesaid Act. It so seems that the State Government proceeded to recover the aforesaid amount with interest from the Plaintiff by his arrest and detention in the civil prison instead of proceedings against the property mortgaged. Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the said Act provides as under: (b) in every case of a mortgage, charge or other encumbrances on Immovable property, such property or, as the case may be, the interest of the defaulter therein shall first be sold in proceedings for recovery of the sum due form that person as it if were an arrear of land revenue, and any other proceedings may be taken thereafter only if the Collector certifies that there is no prospect of realisation of the entire sum due through the first mentioned process within a reasonable time. 4. Admittedly in the instant case, there is no certificate by the Collector that the loan could not be recovered from the Plaintiff by the sale of the mortgaged property. Consequently, the aforesaid provision prohibited it to proceed in any other manner. The lower appellate court has granted an injunction against the government which is rather in too wide terms. 5. The court below has restrained the Defendant-Appellant from realizing the loan as arrears of land revenue by means of his arrest and detention of the Plaintiff. In ray view, such a bald injunction could not be granted. The lower appellate court has granted an injunction against the government which is rather in too wide terms. 5. The court below has restrained the Defendant-Appellant from realizing the loan as arrears of land revenue by means of his arrest and detention of the Plaintiff. In ray view, such a bald injunction could not be granted. It was open to the collector to apply his mind to the facts of the case and having considered it, might have come to the finding that the loan could not be recovered from the mortgaged property and he could certainly issue a certificate as contemplated by the aforesaid provision and proceeded for recovery of dues in the manner as envisaged under the U.P. Land Revenue Act. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the lower appellate court is modified and the State Government is restrained from recovering the due amount from the Plaintiff by his arrest or detention unless the Collector issues a certificate at contemplated under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act. The appeal is decided accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.