JUDGMENT 1. - The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Order 43, Rule 1 (r) of CPC, challenging the order dated 03.10.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, No.9 Jaipur Metro (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Misc. (T.I.) Application No.09/15. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff has filed the suit seeking cancellation of the certificate dated 01.10.2013 of recovery issued by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1, under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Public Demands Recovery Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and seeking declaration that the appellant-plaintiff was not liable to pay the said amount under the certificate and also for consequential reliefs. The appellant also had filed the application for temporary injunction seeking stay of the operation of the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the respondent No.1, rejecting the application of the appellant under Section 8 of the said Act and for restraining the respondent No.1 from encashing the demand draft of Rs.4,18,04,735/- deposited by the appellant under protest, and further restraining the respondent No.1 from remitting the said amount to the respondent No.2. The said application has been dismissed by the trial court vide the impugned order and hence the present appeal has been filed. 3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.N. Mathur for the appellant, relying upon various provisions of the said Act that the trial court had committed an error in holding that the application of the appellant seeking temporary injunction was not maintainable in view of alternative remedy available to the appellant under Section 23-A of the said Act. He further submitted that when the trial court had found that the suit of the appellant was maintainable under Section 20 of the said Act, the trial court could not have held that the application for temporary injunction was not maintainable. According to him as per the proviso to Section 16, when the amount has been deposited under protest, the same could not have been forwarded by the Collector to the department concerned, till the suit was finally disposed of. 4. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in the said Act. 4. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions contained in the said Act. The said Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the recovery for public demands in the State of Rajasthan. When requisition of recovery of public demand is made by the concerned authority under Section 3, the concerned Collector on being satisfied that the demand is recoverable under the Act, may sign certificate to that effect in the prescribed form as contemplated under Section 4 of the said Act. Such certificate has to be served upon the defaulter by serving notice under Section 6. The defaulter may within 30 days from the service of such notice under Section 6, or when the notice was not being duly served, within 30 days from the execution of any process for enforcing the certificate, present a petition under Section 8 in the prescribed form before the concerned Collector denying his liability in the whole or in part, on the ground that demand is not recoverable under the Act. As per Section 15, the defaulter on service of notice under Section 6 or at any subsequent stage, may pay under protest the amount due under the certificate to the Officer executing it. As per Section 20, a defaulter may bring the suit to have the certificate cancelled or modified, and for any further consequential relief within the time limit prescribed in the said section. Section 23-A deals with the appeal, under which an appeal/order made by the Collector under Section 8 or 19-A can be filed to the Revenue Appellate Authority. 5. In the light of the afore stated provisions under the Act, if the facts of the present case are appreciated, it appears that after the service of notice under Section 6 of the certificate dated 01.10.2013 issued by the respondent No.1-Collector, the appellant had filed an application on 14.11.2013 under Section 8 denying its liability to pay the amount under the certificate. The said application came to be dismissed on 27.01.2015 by the respondent No.1, which order remained unchallenged at the instance of the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed the suit under Section 20 of the said Act seeking cancellation/modification of the said certificate with consequential reliefs. The said application came to be dismissed on 27.01.2015 by the respondent No.1, which order remained unchallenged at the instance of the appellant. The appellant thereafter filed the suit under Section 20 of the said Act seeking cancellation/modification of the said certificate with consequential reliefs. In the said suit, the appellant filed the application for temporary injunction, as stated herein above. 6. From the bare perusal of the provisions contained in the said Act more particularly Section 20 and 23-A, it transpires that the suit to have a certificate cancelled or modified, and for any further consequential relief could be filed by the defaulter within the time limit as prescribed in the said section, whereas an appeal against the order made by the Collector under Section 8 could be filed to the Revenue Appellate Authority under Section 23-A of the said Act. Hence as rightly observed by the trial court, though the suit of the appellant-plaintiff under Section 20 seeking cancellation/modification of the certificate in question was maintainable, the appellant was not entitled to seek interim injunction for staying the operation of the order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 8, the alternative remedy of filing the appeal being available to the appellant under Section 23-A of the said Act. The trial court has rightly pressed into service Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act in this regard, as per which, no injunction could be granted when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by other mode of proceedings. 7. Though, it is sought to be submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the amount deposited by the appellant should not be forwarded to the respondent No.2 in view of the provisio to Section 16 of the said Act, the said submissions also cannot be accepted. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under:- "16. 7. Though, it is sought to be submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that the amount deposited by the appellant should not be forwarded to the respondent No.2 in view of the provisio to Section 16 of the said Act, the said submissions also cannot be accepted. Section 16 of the said Act reads as under:- "16. Display by Collector.- If any amount has been paid under protest under section 15 and the protest is in order, such amount along with the protest shall be forwarded to the officer or authority charged with the realisation of the public demand: Provided that, where such protest is made on any of the grounds specified in section 9, the Collector to whom the payment has been so made shall keep the amount thereof in his custody till the expiry of the period within which a suit may be brought under section 20, or if a suit has in the meantime been brought until the same has been finally disposed of." 8. It is pertinent to note that Section 9 of the said Act has already been omitted by the Act of 40 of 1960, and therefore in the opinion of the Court, the proviso to Section 16 has also become redundant on account of said omission. Since Section 16 enables the respondent No.1 to forward the amount deposited under protest to the officer or authority charged with the realisation of the public demand, the appellant could not be said to be entitled to the other prayer for restraining the respondent No.1 from encashing the demand draft deposited under protest or from remitting the said amount deposited under protest to the respondent No.2. It cannot be gainsaid that the respondent No.2 being the department of the government, the amount if remitted to it, could be easily recovered at any time, if the appellant plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the suit. The appellant has also failed to point out any irreparable loss which might be caused to the appellant if the interim relief as prayed for in the application was not granted. 9. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed. 10. 9. In that view of the matter, the Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the trial court. The appeal being devoid of merits, is dismissed. By this order, the stay application also stands dismissed. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the suit.Appeal Dismissed. *******