1. - Instant Revision Petition is directed against order dated 16/09/2003 passed by the Additional District Judge No.1, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Appeal no.88/2001 partly confirming the order dated 06/11/2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (JD) No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Application no.777/2001 filed under Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC.

2. The contentious issue between the parties is violation of an interim order dated 31/08/1991 passed by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the breach of the above dated interim order, the plaintiff-respondent preferred an application under Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC in the Trial Court and the Trial Court after evaluating the documentary evidence as well as the oral evidence led by both the parties, concluded that the defendant-petitioner herein had violated the interim order of the injunction dated 31/08/1991 and thus, vide order dated 06/11/2001 directed the petitioner herein to remove the construction made after passing of the interim order within a period of one month, failing therewith to attach the disputed property of the defendant-petitioner and commit her to civil prison for three months.

3. This order was assailed by the defendant-petitioner by way of Civil Misc. Appeal No.88/2001 and the ADJ concurring with the view taken by the Trial Court also concluded that the defendant-petitioner herein had violated the interim order but was of the view that under Order 39, Rule 2A of CPC, the Court was not entitled to order demolishing of the constructions made in defiance of the interim injunction order but could only direct attachment of the property and commit a wrong doer to civil prison and based on such view, the Appellate Court vide order dated 16/09/2003 partly allowed the appeal preferred by the defendant-petitioner herein, and set aside the order of demolition passed by the Trial Court but sustained the order of attachment of property as well as commitment of the defendant-petitioner herein to civil prison.

4. Being dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate court, the defendant-petitioner has preferred the instant Revision Petition. An affidavit of the defendant-petitioner along with the photographs, depicting the earlier state and the position after demolition has also been submitted on 22/10/2013 by the defendant-petitioner and a counter affidavit asserting that only partial demolition has been carried out by the defendant-petitioner, has been submitted by the respondent No.1-plaintiff on 24/10/2013 along with photographs depicting the existing state of construction.

5. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner contended that no construction was made by the defendant-petitioner on or after the day when the Trial Court restrained/maintained status-quo and whatever construction was made, it was prior to the said injunction order. He further contended that in view of the subsequent demolition of the construction on the wall by the defendant-petitioner, the order of attachment and commitment to civil prison passed by the Appellate Court may be quashed and set aside. He further submits that the petitioner is an old aged lady of about 75 years now and has tendered unconditional apology and in such facts and circumstances of the instant case may be allowed. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Counsel for the defendant-petitioner relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Bindu Khan v. Samee Khan 1999 (1) WLC 518 and the judgment delivered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rachpal Singh v. Gurdarshan Singh AIR 1985 Punjab and Haryana 299.

6. Per-contra, Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff vehemently submits that still the defendant-petitioner has only partially complied with the injunction order and porch, staircase and a room apart from the garage still exists in the set back area and hence the defendant-petitioner deserves no sympathy. He contended that the defendant-petitioner had continued to raise construction despite of the