( 1 ) FOR the purpose of deciding these appeals it is not necessary to state all facts. The reason is that all facts are stated in the judgment of City Civil Court and those facts are admitted.

( 2 ) THE appeals are filed challenging the order passed by the Judge City Civil Court (Court No. 3) Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 3615 of 1973. The application below exh. 546 was decided by the learned City Civil Court Judge on 23-9-1983.

( 3 ) ONE Noor Ahmed Noor Mohmed was the plaintiff and Kulsambibi Ibrahimbhai and Usmanbhai were the three defendants. The original suit was filed as an indigent person and it was in fact the permission to allow the original plaintiff to file the suit as an indigent person under Order 33 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 452 of 1972. That application was granted and it was thereafter numbered as suit. Ad-interim injunction exh. He was issued and served on defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3. Ultimately the suit was numbered as Civil Suit No. 3615 of 1973. There was a breach of injunction order issued and therefore application exh. 546 was required to be given. Ultimately after hearing the parties the learned City Civil Court Judge passed an order and he ordered defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 may be detained in civil prison for a period of one month. He also passed an order to the effect that the plaintiff should furnish particulars of the properties of defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 which were liable to be attached under Rule 2a of Order 39 of the Civil Procedure Code. It was stated that on such application being furnished further orders regarding the attachment will be passed. That order is now challenged.

( 4 ) THE learned advocate Shri Nanavati who appeared in all the three matters on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 2 and 3 tendered unconditional apology on behalf of three defendants and submitted that the order passed regarding the attachment in paragraph (B) of the order would serve the purpose and it is not necessary to send any person in civil prison. The grounds stated are that so far as defendant No. 3 is concerned she is female aged 70 and that she is illiterate person and all transactions were being managed by her brothers and therefore she perhaps did not know anything. Defendants No. 2 and 3 are brothers. Now therefore it could not be urged that they were not attending the transactions. However it was submitted that defendants No. 1 and 2 who are brothers they are also sufficiently old and ultimately it was a partition suit and preliminary decree was already passed and a long time had elapsed and even it is quite likely that they may be under an impression that the order of injunction may not now be subsisting. Further by preliminary decree they had got their undivided shares declared and they were in debts. Decrees were passed against them. It is also submitted that when preliminary decree was passed ad-interim injunction was not confirmed.

( 5 ) IN order to satisfy the debts it was necessary to sell the properties and ultimately they sold away their undivided shares and so far as the plaintiff is concerned the plaintiff would not be put to any hardship inconvenience or loss by sale of the defendants undivided shares as ultimately the shares belonged to them.

( 6 ) HAVING considered all these arguments it is clear that though at the time of passing preliminary decree no order was passed stating in clear terms that ad-interim injunction was not confirmed it is required to be noted that it is also not stated that it is vacated. When an order is passed unless it is vacated modified or varied or changed in any other manner that order continues. That fact is known and this position of law need not be reiterated. The only submission which is really made after tendering the unconditional apology is that ultimately it is a technical breach for which persons are not required to be sent to jail.

( 7 ) THE learned Advocate Shri Vyas submitted that the accounts are requir