Judgment-debtors in an injunction decree are the revision petitioners. The decree was on 15-12-1965 in O.S. 115 of 1965 by the Munsiff, Haripad restraining them by permanent injunction from committing waste. On 12-10-1982 E.P. 110 of 1982 was filed alleging disobedience of injunction decree by cutting two jack trees and seeking action under O. 21 R. 32. They denied the acts but on the basis of evidence the Munsiff found them guilty of having wilfully violated the injunction decree. Judgment-debtors, husband and wife, on the wrong side of sixty were ordered to be detained in civil prison for 15 days each. That order is challenged in revision.

2. The finding that trees were cut is on the basis of appreciation of evidence which include report of the Commissioner and evidence of witnesses. Within the limited revisional jurisdiction under S. 115 there is no scope for interference with that finding and the learned counsel rightly desisted from making any such attempt. His attempt was only to convince me that the disobedience was not wilful and hence action is not justified.

3. The requirements for enforcing an injunction decree under O. 21 R. 32(1) by detention in civil priso