The moot questions raised in the civil revision are :-

(A) What is the limit or extent of the jurisdiction of an appellate Court hearing an appeal under O.43 R.1 (r) of the C.P.C. ? Whether the appellate Court is competent to interfere with an order passed by the trial Court holding that there was no violation of an order of injunction merely because it arrives at a different conclusion on the same set of facts but without arriving at the conclusion that the findings arrived at by the trial Court were unreasonable, perverse or violative of any known principles of civil jurisprudence ?

(B) Whether the judgement of the appellate Court can be sustained when the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court was grounded on several reasons and the appellate Court merely finds one of such grounds to be unreasonable and reverses the judgement and order of the trial Court ?

(C) Whether a person not injuncted against by a civil curt under O.39 R.1 of the Code can be penalised for violation of an order of injunction ? 2. The present petitioners were not parties in title suit No. 26 of 1970 instituted by the opposite party in which an order of injunction had been passed against the defendant Aswini (since dead). Late Aswini was injuncted not to enter into the suit land. There was no order rendered by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge injuncting his servants, agents, workmen or relations in the manner set out in form No. 8 of Sch. 1, Appendix F of the C.P.C. The forms given in the Appendix are statutory forms as enjoined under O.48 R.3 read with S.121 of the C.P.C. However, the forms are subject to alteration by the High Court under S.121 of the C.P.C. Form - P-18 has been prescribed by Gauhati High Court in Civil Rules and Orders Vol. II page 278. It clearly shows that a Court being satisfied can injunct a defendant and also other persons like agents, servants, relations etc. of the party. The indubitable position in the present case is that there was no order of injunction against the petitioners. Violation of an injunction is punishable under the Code itself. The nature of the proceeding and quality of evidence which are required to be proved and established may not be of the standard of criminal proceedings. Undoubtedly the proceedings are punitive in nature. It is an established law that allegations like fraud, undue influence establishment of violation of order of injunction being punitive proceedings require stricter proof than civil actions.

3. Be that as it may, in the instant case we are concerned with the question, as to whether persons not injuncted by an order of the court can lie punished for violating a restrictive injunction. An injunction is a judicial process whereby a party is ordered to refrain from doing or to do a particular act or thing. It is well known, that the former is called restrictive injunction, and the latter a mandatory injunction. An injunction is an order of the Court. An interlocutory or interim injunction is to preserve matters in situ until the case can be tried. In my opinion there cannot be a violation of an order of injunction by a person unless he is pointedly injuncted not to do or to do certain things by a Court of law. In the instant case I have perused the order of injunction issued by the learned Addl. Subordinate Judge and find that the order did not contain any direction to the petitioners not to enter into the suit land. As such, assuming, they had been in the land they are not liable for violation of the injunction.

4. In my opinion, when an appellate Court hears an appeal under O.43 R.1(r) it is an ordinary rule that findings arrived at by the trial court on appraisal of evidence recorded by him on noting the demeanour of the witnesses ought not to be disturbed unless the findings arrived at are such that it amounted to clause of the process of the Court or caused injustice, The trial court has held that (1) the witnesses for the plaintiff were discrepant on all material particular