The sequence of orders in case of disobedience of an injunction order under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. is as follows: (i) attachment of the property of the contemner, and (ii) detention of the contemner in civil prison. The order of detention in civil prison can only be passed in addition to the order of attachment of property, and not in lieu thereof.

M. A. KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition u/s. 115, C. P. C. is directed against the order dt. 7-2-1996 whereby the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gangapurcity upheld the order of the Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Gangapurcity dt. 28-9-1991 sentencing the petitioner to civil imprisonment for one month under O. 39, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. The impugned orders were rendered by the Courts below under the following circumstances. The parties are residents of Gangapurcity town in district Sawaimadhoopur. Their residential houses appear to be situated just close to each other. In the south of the double storied house of the respondent there situates the residential house of the applicant. Some portion of applicants house lies in the west of respondents house. The house of the applicant and portion of his house in the west of respondents are stated to be separated by about 4 fts wide Gali in the west of respondents house. The parties appear to be in dispute over the land or a part of the land covered by the said Gali.

( 2 ) SOMETIMES in the year 1984 the respondent filed a suit for injunction for restraining the applicant from interfering with his use of the Gali on the western side and from not putting any obstruction therein. Along with the plaint an application under Order 39, Rr. 1 and 2, C. P. C. was also filed by the respondent whereupon ad interim injunction requiring the applicant to maintain status quo was granted on 16-10-1984. The injunction order, so granted on 16-10-1984, was made absolute on 31-10-1987 with the consent of the parties.

( 3 ) ON 30-11-1987 the respondent moved an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C. P. C. , complaining that the applicant had blocked the Gali on Western side by raising a brick wall in front of the portion of his house on its Northern side, which lay to the West of respondents house. The Court was required to punish the applicant with three months civil imprisonment for having disobeyed the order of the Court dt. 31-10-1987. After hearing parties and allowing them opportunity to produce evidence in support of their respective cases. The learned Munsiff came to the conclusion that the applicant had disobeyed the order of the Court dt. 31-10-1987 by constructing Kachcha bricks wall. 46 inches long and 21 inches high, on the disputed land. The learned Munsiff, accordingly held the applicant liable for disobeying order of the Court dt. 31-10-1987 and sentenced him to one months simple imprisonment. The appeal preferred by the applicant against the order of the Munsiff was also dismissed on 7-2-1996. Hence, this petition under S. 115, C. P. C.

( 4 ) MR. V. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the nature of the alleged breach of the order of Court of Munsiff was not such as would have justified the imposition of sentence of civil imprisonment for one month upon him. It was submitted that the applicant was an old man and that since after institution of the suit in the year 1984 and grant of ad interim injunction on 31-10-1987 the suit had shown to substantial progress and, therefore, the applicant might have raised the disputed Kachcha wall. It was submitted that the act of the applicant was in the direction of protecting his property from the flow of water and not with the intention of disobeying the order of the learned Munsiff made on 31-10-1987. At any rate, urged the learned counsel, in the nature of the alleged breach of the order of the Court the property of the applicant should have been attached in the first instance and the punishment of civil imprisonment should not have been awarded to him. It was submitted that the object of Order 39, Rule 2-A was to enforce the interim order of injunction and that should have been done by attachment of the property of the petitioner in case such attachment yielded no result then of course, the order of sentence of civil imprisonment might have been passed.

( 5 ) MR. S. K. Gupta, learned counsel fo