This revision petition has arises against the judgment and order dated 3.11.95 passed by the learned District Judge, Cachar, Silchar in Misc Appeal No.l 1 of 1995 allowing the appeal by reversing the order dated 4.8.95, passed by the learned Assistant District Judge in Misc Case No.64 of 1995 in connection with Title Suit No.64 of 1995. 2. The respondent as plaintiff filed the above mentioned suit seeking declaration of right to collect cattle registration fee of Gaon Panchayat under Kalain Gaon Panchayat and also for injunction restraining the defendants, Anchalik Panchayat In interfering with the collection of registration fees of cattle market under the said Panchayat. Vide order dated 20.6.95 the trial Court granted an order of interim injunction and the same was subsequently vacated after hearing the defendant by order dated 4.8.95. Being aggrieved the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court and as stated above, the same was allowed. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that under sub-section (3) (e) (i) of section 25 of the Assam Gaon Panchayat Act, the plaintiff Gaon Panchayat has power to collect registration fee of the catties sold in the market within its jurisdiction. 4. The appellant/defendant resisted the contention of the plaintiff on the ground that the Gaon Panchayat has no power and authority to realise any revenue from any market or others within the jurisdiction which is exclusively matter to be dealt in by the Anchalik Panehayat. Further contention is that earlier the Assam Panchayati Raj Act, 1986 govern the constitution, power and function of the respective Panchayat, but after the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution of India by the 73rd Amendment Act, 1986 Act has been replaced by State of Assam by enacting a new Act, namely, Assam Panchayat Act, 1994 (the 1994 Act), in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution under Article 243 (H) of the Constitution the Legislature of a State may by law authorise a Panchayat to levy, collect and appropriate taxes, duties, tools and fees in accordance with such procedure and subject to such limits and Article 243 (I) provides for a Finance Commission to review the' financial position of the Panchayats. The 1994 Act provides for three tier Panchayat system, namely Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zila Parishad with different power and functions of each. The 1994 Act provides for three tier Panchayat system, namely Gaon Panchayat, Anchalik Panchayat and Zila Parishad with different power and functions of each. The source of revenue of the Panchayat is different types of Hats and Bazars, namely, private Hats and Hats owned by the Panchayat such Hats are situated in some particular area and such Hats covers various Gaon Panchayats and a Anchalik Panchayat may have a number of Hats within its jurisdiction so far private Hats are concerned, as per section 107 of the 1994 Act. The Gaon Panchayat have exclusive jurisdiction to settle the same. But so far Panchayat Hats are concerned, it is the Alnchalik Panchayat who can settle the said Hats as per section 105 of the 1994 Act, 20% proceeds of which has to be deposited to the Zila Parishad and 40% to be distributed among the Gaon Panchayat under the Anchalik Panchayat and intention of the Legislature being equitable distribution of the proceeds to some Gaon Panchayat who do not have Hats. Similarly Hats with value between one lac to 3 lacs come under the Zila Parishad under section 109 and sale proceeds be distributed in the similar manner. Under section 25 of the 1994 Act, the Gaon Panchayat also can impose tax on private Hats and fisheries as well as taxes on cess or fees of registration of the cattle sold within the local area of these private Hats etc but has no jurisdiction to collect so in respect of the cattle sold in Panchayat Hats, inasmuch as cattle from different Gaon Panchayats are being sold and the lessee of such Hats/ Bazar is to collect such cess/fees etc of sale of cattle and a portion of the sale proceed is received by all the Gaon Panchayats. That as the provisions of the Act provides the jurisdiction of respective Panchayats over Panchayat Hats and private Hats, a Gaon Panchayat cannot interfere in respect of collection of cess or fees in respect of articles and cattle sold in a market which is settled by the Anchalik Panchayat as per provisions of the Act. 5. The dispute has arisen between the two Panchayats when the petitioner Panchayat (defendant) invited tender for settlement of Babur Bazar Cattle Market for a period of one year from 1.7.95 to 30.6.96. 5. The dispute has arisen between the two Panchayats when the petitioner Panchayat (defendant) invited tender for settlement of Babur Bazar Cattle Market for a period of one year from 1.7.95 to 30.6.96. The plaintiff-respondent Gaon Panchayat challenged the authority of the Anchalik Panchayat to settle the same claiming its jurisdiction to collect cattle registration fees from the said market and filed the title suit as stated above. 6. Counsel of both the parties submitted their points interpreting the provisions of both the Acts, namely the 1994 Act and the 1986 Act, regarding-financial power and jurisdiction of the respective Panchayats. .7. In view of the back drop of the case the point for consideration before this revisional Court is that whether the Court below acted within its jurisdiction in granting injunction to collect fee by setting aside the decision of the trial Court 8. The trial Court after hearing the parties vacated the ad interim exparte order by order dated 4.8.95. 9. The trial Court considering the comparative injury, that might be caused to the defendant in the event of allowing injunction, came to the finding that an; interference with regard to settlement of the suit market and from realising sale fee on cattle sold would cause injury to the opposite party, Anchalik Panchayal 10. On perusal of the judgment of the lower appellate Court, it is seen that to establish the prima facie case for trial the Court below considered the entire matter on merit which apparently decided the entire suit without trial. Though the Court has discretionary power to grant or reject a prayer for injunction, the discretionary power is circumvent by consideration for three cardinal principle being presence of prima facie case for trial, balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury. Even presence of a prima facie case cannot be a ground to grant injunction. The instant suit was for a declaration as stated above. I cannot be said that an injunction can be granted in a suit for declaration. On the fact of each case it has to decide whether the injunction prayer does or does no fall within the four corners of either Rule 1 or Rule 2 of Order 39 CPC. Ii granting an injunction the Court should always be cautious that while determining the prayer for injunction, the findings would not reflect in determining the issue in the suit. Ii granting an injunction the Court should always be cautious that while determining the prayer for injunction, the findings would not reflect in determining the issue in the suit. Order of the Court on the prayer for injucntion should not take the character of final verdict at the stage of the proceedings in respect of prayer for temporary injunction. 11. As it is seen in the impugned judgment the learned District Judge b; making a comparative study of the provisions of Act, 1986 and Act, 1994 ha tried to establish the title of the opposite party. Prima facie case for trial must not be confused with prima facie titles which has to be established by evidence in trial. Besides showing the existence of a prima facie case, the applicant further required to satisfy the Court that, interference by injunction is necessary before his right can be established on trial, that irreparable injury will cause to him in the injunction is not granted. 12. In applying the balance of convenience the Court below ought to have weight the amount of substantial mischief that is likely to be done to the plaintiff respondent :f the injunction is refused. In this case even if the plaintiff is injuncted to collect registration fee till the disposal of the suit, and if the registration fee is allowed to collect by the defendant, Anchalik Panchayat a share of the proceed will go to the Gaon Panchayat and if the plaintiff get the decree, the amount so collected will have to be refunded. As the subject matte of the suit relates to public administration, temporary injunction normally should not be granted. In a catena of decisions of the Apex Court as well as High Court have decided that refusal of injunction relating monetary, payment of tax etc no irreparable loss or injury likely to be caused (agreed with on AIR 1985 Delhi 136 AIR 1960 Allahabad). 13. In the case of Siligury Municipal Corporation vs. Amalendu Das ( AIR 1984 SC 653 ) the Apex Court held that the Court has to show awareness to the fact that in a case a Municipal Corporation cannot function or met its financial obligations, if its source of revenue is blocked by an interim order of the Court. The grant of an interlocutory order would paralise the administration and dislocated the entire working. 14. The grant of an interlocutory order would paralise the administration and dislocated the entire working. 14. In the instant case the issue regarding entitlement of the collection of registration fees on catties have to be decided first by legal evidence, whether the cattle market is a private market or not under the provisions of section 107 of the Act, 1994 and whether the cattle market in question falls under the jurisdiction of the Anchalik Panchayat as claimed. Further compliance of the provision of section 23 (4) required to be decided in the trial. Further issues regarding compliance of section 25 (3) (b) and (e) of the 1994 Act also has to be decided in the trial. These enquiries can be done only in trial. Section 25 (b) of the 1994 Act also provides for Govt control regarding levy of taxes and sub­section (7) also provides for approval of the Anchalik Panchayat regarding levy of taxes etc. Section 135 of the Act, 1994 provides for disposal of the disputes between Pancjiayats if disputes arised between two or .more Panchayats and in that case matter has to be referred to the State Government. Collection of fee, allocation of fund and expenditure thereof relates to public interest and in such a case weightage must be given to that aspect by applying principle of balance of convenience.. 15. From the above discussion I hold that the impugned judgment and order of the lower appellate Court is not sustainable and the order is passed in excess of its jurisdiction, In the result the impugned judgment and order is set aside and the order of the trial Court is restored. The trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial and dispose of the same expeditiously.