1. This application in revision has been filed against the orders of the Courts below punishing the petitioner for disobedience of the Courts order passed in an injunction matter.

2. The principal question involved in this case is as to whether the petitioner is liable to be proceeded against under O.39. R.2 (3). Civil P.C. when he was not personally a party to the suit.

3. The relevant facts leading to the passing of the order, are as follows. The plaintiff Subodh Prasad Singh instituted Title Suit No. 29 of 1976 in the trial court praying to declare him as the legally appointed Headmaster of Raj Kumar and Lalji High School. Barhonia impleading the Board of Secondary Education, Bihar, through its Secretary as defendant first Party the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School as defendant second party and Shri Vivekanand Mishra (for short Shri Mishra) as defendand third Party. The plaintiff and Shri Mishra were appointed as Assistant Teachers in the school with effect from 27-7-1960 and 25-7-1958 respectively. At that time one Jogendra Prasad Singh was the Headmaster who left the school and Shri Mishra being the seniormost Assistant Teacher was appointed the Incharge Headmaster with effect from 1-1-1971. The petitioner had joined as District Education Officer, Monghyr. on 18-2-1976. The Board of Secondary Education by its order dated 12-3-1976 had already confirmed the order of the petitioners predecessor appointing Shri Mishra as the Headmaster of the school (Annexure-8).

4. In Title Suit No. 29 of 1976 filed by the plaintiff-opposite party on 14-41976 in the court of the Second Munsif, Monghyr, to establish his claim over the office of the Headmaster, he inter alia prayed for injunction restraining Shri Mishra from working as the Headmaster of the school. On 15-4-76 while issuing the notice in the injunction matter the trial court ordered "to maintain status quo until the final disposal of the injunction matter". The Board communicated this order of the court to the petitioner also. On 7-12-1976 the plaintiff filed an application in the trial court against all the three defendants complaining that the order of status quo was violated by the defendants and that this petitioner was the person concerned liable for the contempt of court. This was registered as Misc. Case No. 61 of 1976. Notice was accordingly issued to the petitioner and cause was shown defending the action of the petitioner as the District Education Officer. One of the points taken was that the petitioner being not a party, could not be proceeded against in this proceeding.

5. The trial court held that before and after 15-4-1976 it was the plaintiff who was working as the Headmaster of the school and that the petitioner (District Education Officer) had disobeyed the order of status quo by treating Shri Mishra as the Headmaster of the school. It accordingly ordered for attachment of 2 months salary of the petitioner as a measure of punishment for the aforesaid disobedience. An appeal was filed by the petitioner and the Additional District Judge by his long order dismissed the same. While dismissing the appeal the learned Additional District Judge held that the petitioner was "the agent of the Board and the Board had directed the then D. E. O., Monghyr to scrunulously obey the order of the court, i.e., to maintain status quo, but the...... appellant did not respect the order of the court.......... "

6. Although in revision the findings were not challenged and in fact could not be challenged, just for the sake of completing the facts. I would state that the case of the plaintiff was that he had been promoted as Acting Headmaster of the school on 26-10-1974 by the Managing Committee and that Sri Mishra never took charge of the office of the Headmaster in pursuance of the letter of the Board dated 12-3-1970 and. therefore, it was the plaintiff who was working as the Headmaster up to 8-11-1976.

7. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is