CRP 475/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR HN SARMA Heard Mr. P. Bhowmick, learned counsel for the petitioner. The subject matter of challenge in this petitioner filed under Articl e 227 of the Constitution of India is the appellate judgment and order dated 8. 3.2010 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaon, in Misc. Appeal No. 1 5/07 by which the appeal filed by the respondents was allowed and the judgment a nd order dated 10.10.2001 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 56/2001 in M.Ex. Case No. 13/2001 was set aside and quashed. The petitioner herein is suffering from a decree passed in Money Suit No. 20/2000 in the which the learned trial court vide order dated 23.6.2000 decr eed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent on admission for Rs. 3,26,700/- against the defendants including the present petitioner. The aforesaid decree was passe d on admission of the defendants. The defendants having failed to honour the dec ree the plaintiff in that suit put the decree into execution wherein Money Exe. Case No. was registered and in the course of the process of the execution two in stallments have been realised from the salary of the petitioners. Thereafter, th e petitioners challenging the aforesaid decree by filing Title Suit No. 66/2001 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Nagaon. In the aforesaid suit the plaintiff/petitioner also filed an application for injunction restraini ng the defendants/respondents from prosecuting with the money execution case No. 13/2001 and to realise the decreetal amount, against which a written objection was filed by the proforma respondents. The learned trial court vide order dated 10.10.2001, upon hearing the parties granted temporary injunction against the re spondents from proceeding with the execution case being Money Execution Case No. 13/2001 realising the decreetal amount from the salary of the plaintiff No. 1 t hrough the court till disposal of the T.S. No. 56/2001. The aforesaid order was carried into the appeal by the respondent being Misc. Appeal No. 15/2007 in the court of the learned Addl. District Judge, Nagaon. The learned appellate court v ide impugned judgment and order dated 23.3.2010 allowing the appeal setting asid e the order of injunction passed by the learned trial court. Challenging the aforesaid order passed in the appeal, the present petiti on has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitut ion of India. It is contended by Mr. Bhowmick that the suit was decreed in an illegal fashion without issuing notice upon the petitioner and the never admitted the cl aim as reflected in the order dated 23.6.2001. The learned appellate court in pa ssing the impugned order considered the relevant facts and circumstances of the case including the principle for granting injunction in such a suit Admittedly t here is an existing decree against the plaintiff/petitioner which is the subject matter of challenge in the suit. So long the suit is decreed, the decree passed by the learned trial court in the original suit stands. In order to get an orde r of injunction in such a case the plaintiff must show a strong prima facie case by in the instant case as observed by the learned appellate court the decree is only for money decree and it cannot be said that there would be an irreparable loss if the decree is allowed. Money decree can always be compensated in terms o f money. It is also to be noted herein that the decree against the order dated 2 3.6.2001 decreeing the suit, the plaintiff/petitioner neither filed an appeal no r the said order was challenged in any forum and he awaited till the execution o f the case wherein two installments were realized from the salary of the petitio ner and at that stage the plaintiff/petitioners have filed the suit challenging the decree. The learned appellate court passed the impugned order on the basis of the records of the original money suit no. 20/2000 wherein an agreement betwe en the plaintiff and the defendants relating to money transaction is found. Considering the basic principle for granting injunction to the effect th at an injunction need to be granted when it can be compensated in terms of money and the prayer for injunction for restraining the defendants from executing the money decree, I do not consider that the plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case for granting injunction. That apart, under Section 41 of the CP C of the Specific Relief Act injunction is to be refused to restrain any person from proceeding to any court from where injunction is sought. In view of the aforesaid discussions and upon perusal of the impugned ju dgment, I do not find that the learned appellant court has committed any jurisdi ctional error so as to interfere with the judgment and decree. Accordingly, this petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that in the event the plaintiff is successful in the suit, he would certainly be entitled to file necessary application for re storation of the petition under S. 144 of the CPC.