R. K. MAHAJAN, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the short question for decision is whether a recovery certificate under the u. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972"), can be issued in view of the appeal pending in respect of that amount which is covered under the recovery certificate before the appellate court after the suit has been decreed by the lower court. The facts of this case are briefly stated hereunder : ( 2 ) IT appears that petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 took a loan of Rs. 1,00,000 on May 4, 1979, from respondent No. 3, Bank of Baroda, Orai, which was repayable in 36 instalments for the purchase of a truck. Respondent No. 3 filed a suit and the learned Civil Judge, Jalaun, decreed it. The appeal was filed against the aforesaid order and the same is still pending. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery certificate dated May 25, 1995, and the citation dated July 5, 1995. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners submits that recovery certificate cannot be issued in view of the suit having been filed on the same subject matter regarding which the appeal is pending before the District Judge. ( 5 ) WE are afraid to agree with his submission even for arguments sake. The suit could not have been filed under Section 3 (3) of the U. P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972" ). Section 3 (3) lays down that no suit for recovery of any sum due as aforesaid shall lie in the civil court against any person referred to in Sub-section (1 ). The amount due is to a bank and it is covered under Section 3 of the Act of 1972. The preamble to the Act also lays down that the Act is to provide for the speedy recovery of certain classes of dues payable to the State Government and in this loan due to the scheduled banks has been mentioned. The amount due is to a bank and it is covered under Section 3 of the Act of 1972. The preamble to the Act also lays down that the Act is to provide for the speedy recovery of certain classes of dues payable to the State Government and in this loan due to the scheduled banks has been mentioned. It was for the petitioner to raise a plea there that the suit is barred under Section 3 of the Act of 1972, read with Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and this plea could have been taken before the civil court. At the most the dispute is the same, as informed by learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not know the pleadings in the suit nor we are concerned. We are purely deciding with the legal question that this is a speedy remedy and there is no bar to filing recovery proceedings under Section 3 of the Act of 1972, and the only remedy available is under Section 3 (4) of the Act of 1972, by way of depositing the amount under protest mentioned in the recovery certificate and the recovery proceedings can be stayed. ( 6 ) SECTION 3 (3), (4), (5) and the proviso thereunder of the Act of 1972 are quoted with advantage : " (3) No suit for the recovery of any sum due as aforesaid shall lie in the civil court against any person referred to in Sub-section (1 ). ( 6 ) SECTION 3 (3), (4), (5) and the proviso thereunder of the Act of 1972 are quoted with advantage : " (3) No suit for the recovery of any sum due as aforesaid shall lie in the civil court against any person referred to in Sub-section (1 ). (4) In the case of any agreement referred to in Sub-section (1) between any person referred to in that sub-section and the State Government or the corporation, no arbitration proceedings shall he at the instance of either party either for recovery of any sum claimed to be due under the said sub-section or for disputing the correctness of such claim : provided that whenever proceedings are taken against any person for the recovery of any such sum he may pay the amount claimed under protest to the officer taking such proceedings, and upon such payment the proceedings shall be stayed and the person against whom such proceedings were taken may make a reference under or otherwise enforce an arbitration agreement in respect of the amount to be paid, and the provisions of Section 183 of the Uttar pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901, or Section 287a of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act, 1950, as the case may be, shall mutatis mutandis apply in relation to such reference or enforcement as they apply in relation to any suit in the civil court. (5) Save as otherwise expressly provided in the proviso to subsection (4) of this section or in section 183 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act, 1901, or Section 287a of the Uttar Pradesh zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, every certificate sent to the collector under sub-section (1) shall be final and shall not be called in question in any original suit, application (including any application under the Arbitration Act, 1940), or in any reference to arbitration, and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or intended to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act. " ( 7 ) SECTION 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is also quoted with advantage. "9. " ( 7 ) SECTION 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is also quoted with advantage. "9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred--The courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. " ( 8 ) THERE is no other remedy provided except under Section 3 (4) of the Act of 1972. Special law will override general law. A civil suit is impliedly barred except as discussed. In our view since the bank has resorted to this procedure it is open for the petitioners to make objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in the appeal, if the petitioners like. ( 9 ) IN our considered view the petition does not lie and is summarily dismissed unless the provisions of law quoted above are followed. .