1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents as to the maintainability of these contempt petitions before this Court. The question raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that there is a specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which provides the remedy for violation of an interim injunction passed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the said Code. That remedy is provided by Order 39 Rule 2A. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A are both remedial and punitive. He submits that in the present case, the contempt petitions have been filed stating that there have been violations of the injunction order passed by this Court on 12.5.1999 in CS (OS) 65/1992. The suit has since been transferred to the District Court in view of the raising of the bar of pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 does not lie at all and the only remedy for the petitioner is by way of filing an application under Order 39 Rule 2A. He submitted that the contempt petitions, in ques