JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri J.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the defendant-appellant and Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Plaintiffs instituted Original Suit No. 13 of 1994 for permanent injunction against the defendant Nagar Palika Parishad and the Tehsildar restraining them by a decree of permanent injunction not to recover property tax of Rs. 6760/- and a further some of Rs. 4,246.07/- on the ground that the plaintiffs are already paying property tax in respect of the property in question to some other local authority i.e. Zila Panchayat. 3. The suit was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 18.1.2008. 4. Aggrieved plaintiffs filed Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2008. The appeal has been allowed vide judgment and order dated 19.7.2011. The judgment and order of the Court of first instance has been set aside and the suit has been decreed. 5. It is against the decree of the lower appellate Court that the defendant has filed this Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. 6. The valuation of the suit as well as the appeal is Rs. 11006.07. The aforesaid valuation has been disclosed by taking the total of the two amounts sought to be recovered from the plaintiffs. 7. In substance the subject matter of the original suit happens to be concerning recovery of money not exceeding 25,000/- rupees, though the relief claimed may have been cough in a different way by asking for a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction. 8. Section 102 C.P.C. specifically provides that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit for recovery of money does not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees. The purpose of hearing second appeals in matters arising from suit for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees is to minimize litigation on trivial matters. 9. The suit for recovery of money or for not recovering it are both in the nature of recovery of money. 10. The suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from realizing a particular amount may be in the nature of injunction but nonetheless it is a suit relating to recovery of money. 11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the present second appeal arises out of a suit concerning recovery of money of value less than Rs. 25,000/- and as such it is barred by Section 102 C.P.C. 12. 11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the present second appeal arises out of a suit concerning recovery of money of value less than Rs. 25,000/- and as such it is barred by Section 102 C.P.C. 12. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed as barred by Section 102 C.P.C. —————