The court has the inherent power to substitute punishment based on the circumstances of the case, such as the age of the petitioner.

1. - Heard Mr. R. K. Thanvi for the revision petitioner and Mr. L. R. Calla for the non-petitioner.

2. This revision petition arises out of an order passed under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, by the trial Court and which was confirmed by the appellate Court.

3. The revision-petitioner has been ordered to be sent to civil prison for 15 days for having disobeyed an order to maintain status quo by putting up construction during the period the order was in force.

4. The position of the litigation in which this order was passed is that the suit was decreed by the trial Court but on an appeal it was dismissed by the first appellate Court. Against the decree of the first appellate Court a second appeal has been admitted in this Court. However, there is no dispute that the complaint about the flouting of the order was of the period when the status quo order was in force. I see no reason to disturb the finding that the revision-petitioner was guilty of disobedience of the Court's order.

5. However, looking to the fact that the revision-petitioner is an old lady of about 70 years age, the punishment of sending her to civil prison even for 15 days appears to be a harsh punishment in the circumstances of the case. I would, therefore, substitute in my inherent powers, the punishment of imprisonment in civil prison, by payment of a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. If the fine is not deposited in the Court within a period of two months, the revision-petitioner will have to undergo the imprisonment as directed by the lower Court.

6. The revision petition is disposed of.Order accordingly.

*******