( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel.

( 2 ) THIS CRP is filed by the judgment debtor No. 1 in E. P. No. 99 of 1994 on the file of V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, dated 14-6-2000. Though the order was made sentencing both the judgment-debtors to undergo imprisonment for two years each, the direction was given to issue warrant to both of them, judgment-debtor No. l alone had questioned the said order. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:

( 3 ) THE first respondent-decree-holder filed EP No. 99 of 1994 on the file of the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, under Order 21, Rule 32 (2) CPC praying the Court to detain the judgment-debtors in civil prison for wilful disobedience of the decree of injunction dated 30-12-1992 in O. S. No. 2142 of 1992. The revision petitioner-judgment debtor No. 1 had filed a counter-affidavit denying the allegations alleged by the first respondent decree-holder. No doubt, he had admitted that he is the tenant of the 1st respondent and his father by name Khasim Khan was the Nigrankar for more than 40 years during his life time and he became the tenant of the said property after the death of his father in the year 1983 and the suit property is a Wakf property and he has been residing in the western portion of the suit property. He had also specifically averred that he did not carry out any construction whatsoever in the western portion to his property. The judgment-debtor No. 2 also had filed a counter-affidavit. It is pertinent to note that no witnesses were examined. A Commissioner was appointed and on the strength of a report of the Commissioner, the Court below had come to the conclusion that the judgment debtors 1 and 2 are guilty of violating the orders of the Court and had sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two months each.

( 4 ) SRI C. R. Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had explained the peculiar situation in which judgment debtor No. 1 alone had preferred the present CRP though the Court below had sentenced both the judgment debtors to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the report of the Commissioner, the plaint filed in the suit, the judgment and decree filed in the said suit. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to several portions of the impugned order where there are several disputed questions.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel had contended that along with the plaint there was no plan annexed and the particulars of the constructions had also not specified. Apart from all these, no evidence was given to prove the wilful disobedience, and hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He placed strong reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Sonabati Kumari, AIR 1961 SC 221, Kariyappa v. Haladappa, AIR 1989 Karn. 163, Kedarnath Khetan v. Jainarain Ram, AIR 1954 Pat. 497 and Harihar Pandey v. Mangala Prasad Singh, AIR 1986 All. 9.

( 6 ) SRI Mohd Ghulam Hussain, learned Counsel representing the 1 st respondent had contended that the report of the Commissioner can be treated as evidence and the Court had arrived at the correct conclusion in making the impugned order and therefore, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever.

( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that no oral evidence had been let in by the parties, and no documents also were marked on either side. In fact, the Court below at para 10 of the order observed as follows: "on the Commissioner s report judgment debtor No. 1 filed objections stating that the Advocate Commissioner did not come to the schedule at 10. 30 a. m. , on 10-4-1999, but he came at about 12. 00 p. m. , in Fiat car along with Decree Holder Secretary and commenced the work at 12. 20 p. m. This Court is not going to consider this objection at all because there is no substantial material placed by judgment-debtor No. l before this Court to support the aforesaid aspects. Judgment-debto