JUDGMENT S.R. Bhargava, J. - This appeal is directed against order refusing ad interim injunction. 2. What appears is that on the initiative of Zila Parishad, Moradabad, recovery proceedings are taking place against the appellant in respect of Rs. 43,000/- as balance of thekka money for contract of lifting dead animals, their bones and skins. Plea raised by the plaintiff appellant in the Trial Court was that he never offered any bid in the auction and there was no contract between him and the Zila Parishad. With the plaint appellant presented an application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant respondents from recovering Rs. 43,000/- from the plaintiff appellant. 3. Zila Parishad resisted the application and filed objections. It asserted that plaintiff appellant offered bid and contracted for lifting dead animals, their bones and skins. According to Zila Parishad the bid of the plaintiff appellant was Rs. 2,01,000/-. He paid Rs. 1,62,000/- only and sum of Rs. 43,000/- is still due. Hence recovery proceedings were launched. 4. On the material before him the learned Civil Judge came to the conclusion that prima facie plaintiff appellant contracted for lifting of dead animals, their bones and skins with the Zila Parishad. Learned Civil Judge held that the plaintiff appellant has no prima facie case and dismissed the plaintiffs application for ad interim injunction. 5. Being aggrieved, plaintiff appellant has come to this court. 6. Parties have exchanged affidavit and have been heard at admission stage. Hence the appeal is being disposed of on merits. 7. A new legal point has been raised in this appeal with the permission of the court. It has been argued that balance of contract money cannot be recovered by Zila Parishad as arrears of land revenue. Zila Parishad ought to have filed suit for recovery of the balance of contract money. Contract was in respect of right as to collect dead animals, their bones and skins from the land within the territory of Zila Parishad. There is no case that this right was in respect of such land which vested in the Zila Parishad. The contract money could not be called rent due in respect of the land vested in the Zila Parishad. There is no case that this right was in respect of such land which vested in the Zila Parishad. The contract money could not be called rent due in respect of the land vested in the Zila Parishad. As held in the cases of Chiranji Lal v. Collector and others, 1973 ALJ 164 and Sumer Singh v. Collector-cum-District Magistrate, 1984 UPLBBC 1109 the balance of contract money cannot be recovered as areas of land revenue. 8. Even then the question remains whether in this case injunction as prayed should be issued. There is proviso added by U.P. Amendment in Order 30, Rule 2(2), Clause(g) prohibits issue of injunction to stay the proceedings for recovery of any dues recoverable as land revenue unless adequate security is furnished. As pointed out earlier balance of contract money is not recoverable as land revenue. Hence, Clause(g) of the said proviso is not attracted. 9. On behalf of the respondents reliance was place on Section 257 of the Khetra Samiti and Zila Parishad Adhiniyam, 1961 and it was argued that the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 257. Proviso of Section 257(3) lays down that nothing in sub-section(1) should be construed to apply to a suit wherein the only relief claimed injunction of which the object would be defeated by giving of the notice or the postponment of the commencement of the suit or proceeding. The instant suit is for injunction only and it is also obvious that if the recovery proceedings are continued the very object would be defeated by giving of the notice or the postponment of the commencement of the suit or proceeding. It is true that the form of the plaintiff filed by the plaintiff appellant is improper in the sense that there is no averment the suit is for injunction only and the object of the suit would be defeated by giving of the notice or postponment of the commencement of the suit or proceeding. This is, however, a formal defect and can be removed even subsequently. Here only this much need be said that prima facie suit is not barred by Section 257. 10. Then the question arises or. what condition injunction should be granted in favour of the plaintiff appellant. This is, however, a formal defect and can be removed even subsequently. Here only this much need be said that prima facie suit is not barred by Section 257. 10. Then the question arises or. what condition injunction should be granted in favour of the plaintiff appellant. Prima facie finding of the Trial Court that plaintiff contracted with Zila Parishad and that amount is due, cannot be disturbed on the material on record. Plaintiff appellant is bound to pay the balance of contract money to the Zila Parishad. Balance of convenience would be more effectively served by granting injunction to the plaintiff appellant on the condition that he deposits the money in question in the Trial Court within 3 months. 11. In the result appeal is allowed. Defendant respondents are restrained from recovering Rs. 43,000/- from the plaintiff appellant as arrears of land revenue on the condition that the plaintiff appellant deposits Rs. 43,000/- in the Trial Court within three months hereof. For three months injunction shall operate unconditionally. In the circumstances of the case, no order for cost is being passed.