J.N. SARMA,J- This appeal has been filed against the order dated 30.9.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Hailakandi in Misc. Case No. 34/2000 arising out of Title Suit No. 4/2000 renumbered as T.S. No. 16/2000. By the impugned order the learned Judge rejected the prayer of the plaintiffs to grant an injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. 2. We have heard Mr B.K. Das, learned senior advocate for the appellant and Mr B.K. Goswami, learned senior advocate for the principal respondent Nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7 and Mr P. Roy, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 8 to 14. None appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. The suit was filed by 12 persons the present appellants with the following prayers:- (a) Declaration to the effect that enhanced compensation award obtained in LA 1/93 by the defendant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 is void, illegal and inoperative; (b) To put in moratorium for releasing the award amount by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant Nos. 3,4, 5,6 and 7 till final disposal of TS 3/85, TS 42/86 and TS 6/86; (c) To restrain defendant No. 1 & 2 to release award amount in Misc. LA/1/93 in favour of the defendant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 till disposal of the suit; (d) To grant temporary/permanent injunction against the defendant Nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7 to withdraw the award amount till disposal of TS 3/85, TS 42/86, TS 6/86 pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi. 4. Along with the plaint an application for injunction was filed and that was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 34/2000, but that application for injunction was rejected as indicated above. The defendants filed objection and the matter was heard and by the impugned judgment the learned Judge came to the following findings:- "(i) ....... Prima-facie I found that the suit and the prayers made in the injunction petition are not maintainable; (ii) that it is the admitted position that defendants are in possession of the suit property firstly by way of lease and subsequently on the strength of their alleged right of purchase; (iii) Defendant Nos. 3 to 7 are the recorded owners of the suit properly since long and the award was also granted in their favour by the learned District Judge in Misc. LA 1/93. 3 to 7 are the recorded owners of the suit properly since long and the award was also granted in their favour by the learned District Judge in Misc. LA 1/93. (iv) The plaintiff-petitioners can be compensated in terms of money. 5. Earlier the prayer for injunction in Misc. Case No. 3/86 arising out of Title Suit No. 6/86 was rejected by the trial Court on 14.2.86 and that order has assumed the finality. The Title Suit No. 6/ 86 and the present suit almost are verbatim save and except that in the present suit the award of the District Judge has been challenged, but in the earlier suit the awards of the collector were challenged. But the learned Judge rightly found that the award of the District Judge flowed from the awards passed by the Collector. If the awards passed by the Collector were found prima-facie valid earlier, the question of granting an injunction m the subsequent suit does not arise. It was further found by the learned Judge that before the Collector by filing a Misc. Case No. 2/86 the present plaintiff wanted that the awards passed by the Collector and the matter should be referred to the civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. (It may be that the suit for compensation was in the year 1982). That prayer was rejected by order dated 2.2.86 by the Collector holding that prima-facie the title is in favour of the persons in whose case the award was granted on the basis of the deed of sale dated 21.7.80 and it was further found that these persons who are co-heirs of Late Harichara Saha executed this deed of sale and award was prepared in LA 8/ 82, in respect of this .land. As such, the prayer was rejected and that order has assumed finality. Hence, this appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants Mr B.K. Das urged before us the following questions :- i) Whether the rejection of the application for injunction was justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. ii) That the relief sought for in the suit itself indicates that the order passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Civil Court which was sought to be declared illegal and void was not taken into consideration from proper legal perspective by the Court while considering the prayer for injunction. ii) That the relief sought for in the suit itself indicates that the order passed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Civil Court which was sought to be declared illegal and void was not taken into consideration from proper legal perspective by the Court while considering the prayer for injunction. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents Mr B.K. Goswami urged the following questions :- i) That the validity of the order under Section 18 is not in challenge before this Court nor it was agitated before the trial Court, rather they want to avail the benefit of it. This order was passed long back i.e. on 12.5.97 and the suit was filed on 28.3.2000. It is also urged that the suit is for bare declaration that the award in favour of defendant Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in LA Case No. 1/93 is void, illegal and inoperative. ii) The maintainability of the suit itself should be gone into while granting injunction as held by the Apex Court in 1993(3) SCC 6. iii) That the present suit itself is not maintainable as this suit was filed during the pendency of the T.S. No. 6/86 which in the meantime has been dismissed wherein same reliefs were claimed. The Land Acquisition Act provides forum and machinery and the remedy provided by the Special Act must be pursued and not by suit and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be deemed to be ousted, iv) That this injunction is with regard to the claim for money and so it can be compensated in terms of money and the question of granting injunction does not arise. 8. Before we proceed further, though it is not necessary, yet, to make the grounds clear, we should bear in mind the power of the appellate Court to interfere with the order of injunction. That matter now no longer is res integra in view of single Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997(1) GLT 282: (1997)2 GLR 424 (Yumnam Yaima Singh & Anr.-Vs-Ingom Jugin Singh & Ors.) and 1990(Supp) SCC 727(WanderLtd. andAnr.-Vs-AntoxIndia P. Ltd.). That matter now no longer is res integra in view of single Bench decision of this Court reported in 1997(1) GLT 282: (1997)2 GLR 424 (Yumnam Yaima Singh & Anr.-Vs-Ingom Jugin Singh & Ors.) and 1990(Supp) SCC 727(WanderLtd. andAnr.-Vs-AntoxIndia P. Ltd.). The Supreme Court pointed out that the appellate Court will have the power to interfere with the decision of the trial Court only when it can be shown that the trial Court exercised the discretion arbitrarily or capriciously or perversely or where it can be shown that the trial Court ignored the settled principle of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. The law also by now has been settled that the trial Court at the time of granting an injunction should look to the maintainability of the suit. No doubt, this finding of the trial Court shall be prima- facie finding and if any authority is required for this proposition of law, one may have a look at (1993) 3 SCC 161 (Shiv Kumar Chadha- Vs-Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others) where the Supreme Court pointed out as follows "Before any such order is passed the Court must be satisfied that a strong prima-facie case has been made out by the plaintiff including on the question of maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience is in his favour and refusal of injunction would cause irreparable injury to him. Further the Court should be always willing to extend its hand to protect a citizen who is being wronged or is being deprived of a property without any authority in law or without following the procedure which are fundamental and vital in nature. But at the same time the judicial proceedings cannot be used to protect or to perpetuate a wrong committed by a person who approaches the Court." 9. Mr Goswami learned senior counsel for the respondents regarding the finding of prima-facie case relied on a Division Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 1918 Indian Cases Vol. 48 where the Calcutta High Court pointed out that when a Collector refuses to make a reference, on the application of the party under Section 18 of the LA Act, a suit will lie against the Collector to enforce his liability to refer the matter to the civil Court and such a suit will not be barred under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case also the Collector refused to make a reference in the year 1980 itself as indicated above, but no remedy was pursued by the plaintiffs to get such a reference either by way of a suit or by an application under Article"'226/227 of the Constitution of India and now by coming by the backdoor they want to challenge the legality and validity of that award. The trial Court found that such a suit is not maintainable on two counts that the earlier suit was of the same nature and earlier the prayer for injunction was rejected and earlier there was a suit and that suit was also mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint of the present suit which reads as follows: "That the plaintiffs have brought a regular title suit against the acquisition of land and award thereof specially vide TS 6/86 which is pending for disposal by the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hailakandi and they are very much hopeful to get substantial compensation therein." 10. Mr Goswami, learned sr. counsel for the respondents submits that not only the prayer for injunction was rejected earlier as indicated above, but also the suit itself has been dismissed during pendency of this appeal on 16.8.2000. So, we uphold the finding of the lower Court with regard to existence of prima-facie case. The next is with regard to the balance of convenience. The trial Court found that the balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff. It was found that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the defendants, (certified copy of TS No. 6/86 was produced before us). This matter is being agitated from 1982 and rightly or wrongly there is a sale deed in favour of the defendants. Whether that sale deed ultimately will be found valid or not that will be a different matter. But as on today, that Sale deed prima-facie' must be deemed to Be valid document. (We have not decided anything with regard to the validity of the sale deed. Only we have said such sale deed prima-facie valid). 11. The trial Court also rightly found that irreparable loss and injury has been caused to the defendants and not to the plaintiff and as it is a money matter he may be adequately compensated in terms of money. 12. Only we have said such sale deed prima-facie valid). 11. The trial Court also rightly found that irreparable loss and injury has been caused to the defendants and not to the plaintiff and as it is a money matter he may be adequately compensated in terms of money. 12. However, v/e modify this part of the order to the effect that the Collector if so desired shall make the payment only on furnishing a security bond duly registered to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs. Without furnishing the registered security bond the money shall not be released in favour of the defendants-principal respondents. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. The earlier stay order shall stand merged with the final order. Send down the records immediately.