Dismissal of suit seeking relief of perpetual injunction is grievance of plaintiff in this appeal. 2. Plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act which carries on business of production of Sugar amongst others. For such production, it requires electricity. Part of electricity required is generated by plaintiff from its generating sets. For the said electricity generated, plaintiff is liable to pay duty as provided in the Uttar Pradesh Electricity (Duty) Act, 1952. Vires of this Act was challenged by plaintiff and others in various writ applications in this Court and thereafter, the litigation was carried to Supreme Court. After decision of Supreme Court on 19-8-1983 upholding validity of the Act, Defendant No. 2 called upon plaintiff in letter dated "22-2-1984 to pay Rs. 14,13,786. 84 as duty under the Act. After one month, Defendant No. 2 addressed a letter to Collector on 24-3- 1984 to collect Rs. 12,91,411. 07 from plaintiff, copy of which was sent to plaintiff to pay the same failing which the same would be recovered. Prior to this letter plaintiff was making representations about its liability which were rejected. . Treating letter to Collector as certificate for recovery of the amount mentioned therein under. the coercive process, plaintiff filed the suit for perpetual injunction prohibiting State of Uttar Pradesh (Defendant No. 1) and Assistant Electrical Inspector (Defendant No. 2) from recovering the amount as stated in letter, dated 24-3-1989 under coercive process or as arrear of land revenue towards Electricity duty for the period between November 1970. and September 1983 before examining the duty actually due and taking into account Rs. 7,59,614. 22 paid. 3. Trial Court dismissed the suit finding that before filing the suit plaintiff is required to deposit the amount protest. 4. Judgment of trial court is vulnerable on the short ground that it proceeded on the finding that a certificate has been issued. However, the same cannot be interferred with in case it is found that the suit is liable to be dismissed on other grounds. 5. For deciding the appeal it is to be remembered that plaintiff based its suit asserting that a certificate for recovery of the amount has been issued. If this is found to be incorrect Court should not exercise its judicial discretion to grant relief of perpetual injunction under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act. 6. 5. For deciding the appeal it is to be remembered that plaintiff based its suit asserting that a certificate for recovery of the amount has been issued. If this is found to be incorrect Court should not exercise its judicial discretion to grant relief of perpetual injunction under Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act. 6. It is not in dispute that arrears of electricity duty is to be recovered as arrear of land revenue. In the State, land revenue is recovered under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land. Reforms Act. Dues which are not land revenue but are to be recovered as arrear of land revenue are to be recovered under the Uttar Pradesh Public Monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, if the dues are public money as provided under the said Act. It is not disputed that arrears of electricity duty is not public money under the said Act. Therefore, this special statute is not attracted. Provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act which apply-to all other dues recoverable as land revenue. Rules have been made by State G9vernment under the Revenue Recovery Act. Authority authorised to collect the dues is required to issue a certificate to the Collector for recovery of the amount as arrear of land revenue in the prescribed form. A letter to Coll ector as in the letter, dated 24-3-1984 is, thus, not a certificate as envisaged under the Statute. Plaintiff misconceived such letter to be a certificate and court also did not consider the provisions of the Statute. Apart from a certificate being required to be issued in the prqforma, all the materials informations are required to be incorporated therein since a proceeding for initiation of coercive process is required to be clear in all respects. In letter, dated 24-3-1984 details of the amount sought to be recovered have, not been mentioned. Amount from November 1970 to September 1983 does not give a clear picture of the dues. However, it is not required to delve into the matter further as no certificate has been issued and as such apprehension of plaintiff that the amount mentioned in the letter, dated 24-3-1983 by coercive procedure is premature. 7. Prohibiting injunction with mandatory injunction to decide the liability "of plaintiff is a relief as provided in Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. 7. Prohibiting injunction with mandatory injunction to decide the liability "of plaintiff is a relief as provided in Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. It is a discretionary power of court as provided under sub-section (1 ). No doubt such power is to be exercised judicially. As sub-section (1) provides discretion of court is restricted by providing that the same is subject to other provisions in the Chapter. Added to it, sub- section (3) provides for four circumstances under which prohibitory injunction can be granted where defendant invades or threatens to invade right of the plaintiff or enjoyment of property. 8. Mr. Vishnu Sahai, learned counsel for appellant submitted that money is a property and by calling upon plaintiff to pay the amount as specified in letter, dated 24-3-1989, right of the plaintiff to property is threatened to be invaded since the same would be recovered as arrear of land revenue. 9. It is, however, to be remembered that in spite of invasion of a right at least one of the requirements as provided in Section 38 (3) of the Specific Relief Act is to be pleaded and proved. It is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant is a trustee of the money of the plaintiff. Since plaintiff is cahed upon to pay a specific, amount clause (b) of Section 38 (3) is not attracted. No case has been made out by plaintiff that in case the amount is recovered from plaintiff by coercive process, the same is such invasion, that compensation of money would not afford adequate relief. When money is recovered, plaintiff can file a suit for realisation of such money and damages for illegal recovery. Fourth clause is also not attracted as there is no question of avoiding any multiplicity of judicial proceeding. 10. Even assuming that any of the requirements as envisaged under Section 38 (3) of the Specific Relief Act is satisfied, plaintiff is to overcome the hurdles in Section 41 providing for refusal of injunction. 11. There is no judicial proceeding pending. Only a letter has been addressed to Collector with copy to plaintiff. Recovery under the Revenue Recoveries Act is not a judicial proceeding as no lis is to be adjudicated. Only when Collector receives a certificate he considers whether he would take steps. Such consideration is not adjudication. 11. There is no judicial proceeding pending. Only a letter has been addressed to Collector with copy to plaintiff. Recovery under the Revenue Recoveries Act is not a judicial proceeding as no lis is to be adjudicated. Only when Collector receives a certificate he considers whether he would take steps. Such consideration is not adjudication. When Collector receives a certificate, he is to adopt the procedure as laid down in the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Collector is to pass an order directing the Tehsildar to recover the dues as arrear of land revenue. Tehsildar is to issue a demand or citation as the case may be. In case the amount is paid, question of coercive process arises. Legislature has in its intelligence provides in Section 4 of the Revenue Recovery Act that a person who denies his liability when a proceeding for recovery is initiated under a certificate can institute a suit for repayment of the amount after paying the amount under certificate under protest made" in writing at the time of payment and signed by him or his agent. Under Section 287-A of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. similar provision has been made. Since electricity duty is to be recovered when the same remains unpaid, under the Revenue Recoveries Act following the provisions of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, it can safely be concluded that public policy is that a person denying liability has to pay the amount sought to be recovered for which he denies liability under protest in writing and then file a suit for repayment. Section 330 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in that contest provides for bar of suit save as otherwise provided under the Act. Hence, in view of the legal provision no suit for injunction would be filed where an amount is to be recovered as land revenue. 12. Granting relief of perpetual injunction would have the effect of restraining the Collector who is not subordinate to court from initiating proceeding for recovery which is prohibited under Section 41 (b ). On the ground also relief sough cannot be granted, Clauses (c) to (g) and (i) are not attracted. Under clause (h) also an equally efficacious remedy is available by filing a regular suit after complying with the condition of protest payment. On the ground also relief sough cannot be granted, Clauses (c) to (g) and (i) are not attracted. Under clause (h) also an equally efficacious remedy is available by filing a regular suit after complying with the condition of protest payment. Hence no relief of injunction can be granted on this ground. 13. Conduct of plaintiff is also an important matter for grant of relief of injunction. Clause (i) of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act which provides that an injunction cannot be granted when conduct of plaintiff or his agent has been such as to disentitle him to the assistance of the Court. . 14. In this case plaintiff does not dispute that it is liable to pay electricity duty. As revealed in the plaint schedule it has paid some amount. Entire claim of plaintiff is that in case provisions are properly applied to the facts and circumstances, it would not be liable to pay the amount as called upon in letter, dated 24-3-1984. There is no clear evidence that after receipt of letter, dated 24-3-1984, it made any representation to defendants. In case prior to issue of letter dated 24-3t1984, plaintiff made any representation, it had knowledge that defendants have refused the same. In such circumstances, it was necessary for plaintiff to seek a declaration in the suit that it is not liable to pay any further amount, than what has been paid. Plaintiff had knowledge that for seeking the declaration and consequential relief of injunction, it has to pay ad valorem court-fee. When a plaintiff having knowledge that defendant is disputing his right does not claim a declaration by adjudicating the validity of his claim to right, it is a subterfuge and conduct of plaintiff not being clean, relief of injunction cannot be granted in a suit for injunction only. Added to plaintiff having knowledge that in case he does not pay the dues, the same can be recovered as arrear of land revenue and to get his non-liability established he has to pay the amount under protest, his filing of the suit before issue of certificate by wrongly asserting that a certificate has been. issued is an attempt to overreach the law and therefore, plaintiff cannot get any assistance from the Court. 15. issued is an attempt to overreach the law and therefore, plaintiff cannot get any assistance from the Court. 15. Courts which are approached for perpetual injunction should carefully read the plaint to be prima fade convinced that on the assertion in the plaint, requirements of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act are satisfied and prohibitions as provided under Section 41 of the Act are not attracted. In case an authority is alleged to have exercised his statutory power, short-comings in exercise of such. powers are also to be clearly stated. Whenever court is satisfied that plaintiff has not clearly specified the necessary fact in detail, it ought to reject the plaint after giving opportunity to plaintiff to rectify the same. In case plaintiff ought to have sought for a declaration of his non-liability and consequential relief of perpetual injunction, opportunity ought to be given to amend the plaint and pay the ad valorem court-fee if it is satisfied that plaintiff did not intend to take ad valorem of avoiding to pay the court-fee or overreaching the defendant to utilise the court for getting a benefit which is otherwise barred or conditioned. When despite declaration, relief of injunction ought not be granted, court would not consider the right of the plaintiff as court would not grant a decree which cannot be executed. Unless courts become vigilant at each stage of a suit, there is every chance for a plaintiff utilising the court which otherwise would not have been possible. Precedents providing that in a suit for injunction court can go into the question of title even without a prayer for declaration is only a guidance to help plaintiff to get the relief without the technical refusal of the same where conduct of plaintiff is clean. It cannot be utilised by plaintiff to avoid the normal rule to seek declaration and get consequential relief. 16. Equitably -considered also plaintiffs suit is premature. A letter has only been issued by Defendant No. 2 for taking steps to recover the amount as indicated therein. This letter is not a certificate as provided under the rules Revenue Recovery Act. On the basis of such a letter coercive proceeding cannot be initiated by the Collector. Therefore, no immediate cause arises for grant of perpetual injunction as coercive process cannot be used for recovery of the amount. This letter is not a certificate as provided under the rules Revenue Recovery Act. On the basis of such a letter coercive proceeding cannot be initiated by the Collector. Therefore, no immediate cause arises for grant of perpetual injunction as coercive process cannot be used for recovery of the amount. Once such process starts, plaintiff can file a suit by depositing the amount under protest. No case has been made out in the plaint that by such deposit plaintiff would be ruined, which cannot be compensated by payment of damages and, therefore, suit at this stage should be entertained. Liability of plaintiff is an academic question and we need not delve into such a question. 17. In result, there is no merit in the appeal, which is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. .