One of the questions involved in these revisions is whether the defendants in the suit can be ordered to be detained in civil prison under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for violation of the interim order passed by the court, when the suit was ultimately dismissed. The suit filed by the respondents was dismissed on 30.08.1999 and on the same day as per the order in I.A.Nos.1913 of 1998 and 1981 of 1998, the court held that the revision petitioners have violated the interim order passed by the trial court and they were ordered to be detained in the civil prison for a period of 30 days each. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners defendants against whom applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A were filed, relies on the decision in Vasu vs. Thankamma (1981 K.L.T. 248). Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd (A.I.R. 1997 R.P.Nos.2118 and 2119 of 20002 S.C.1240) and contends that the dictum laid down in 1981 L.T. 248 is no longer good in view of the Supreme Court decision.

2. In Vasu vs. Thankamma, the allegation was that the de