JUDGMENT :

1. This civil revision petition has been preferred against the judgement dated 22.04.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Sawai Madhopur (for brevity, “the learned appellate Court”) in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.83/2003 whereby, while dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants/defendants/contemnors (for brevity, “the defendants”), the order dated 09.10.2003 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sawai Madhopur (for brevity, “the learned trial Court”) in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No.128/97 (174/96) punishing them under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, has been upheld.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the respondent/plaintiff (for brevity, “the plaintiff”) filed an application dated 19.09.1996 against the defendants under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC stating therein that violating the interim order dated 30.08.1996 passed by the learned trial Court in his temporary injunction application no.46/1996 directing the parties to maintain status quo as per the Site Commissioner’s Report dated 26.02.1996, they have raised construction.

3. The defendants in their reply to the application denied the averments made therein.

4. The learned trial Court, vide order dated 22.04.2010, holding the defendants guilty of disobedience of the interim order dated 30.08.1996, punished them with 15 days’ simple imprisonment alongwith attachment of their property and a direction for removal of the construction raised by them. The civil miscellaneous appeal preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed by the learned appellate Court vide judgement dated 22.04.2010.

5. Assailing the judgement impugned, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the learned Courts erred in punishing them under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC without there being any evidence on record to establish that they had raised construction in violation of the interim order dated 30.08.1996 passed by the learned trial Court. He submits that since, the defendants have already removed the construction raised allegedly in violation of the interim order, the matter is about 27 years old, the suit itself was decided on 08.03.2002, i.e., much before passing of the order dated 09.10.2003 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, they tender unconditional apology, the revision petition be allowed, the judgement dated 22.04.2010 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the plaintiff be dismissed.

6. Although, learned counsel for the plaintiff opposed the prayer; but, could not dispute that the suit was decided vide judgement and decree dated 08.03.2002, i.e., prior to passing of the order dated 09.10.2003 by the learned trial Court under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and the construction allegedly raised in violation of the interim order dated 30.08.1996 has already been removed by the defendants.

7. Heard. Considered.

8. The learned trial Court has, vide order dated 09.10.2003, held the defendants guilty of contempt appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence on record. On the basis of pre interim order site commissioner report and post interim order commissioner report, it was held that the defendants have raised construction in violation of the interim order. The findings have been upheld by the learned appellate Court re-appreciating the evidence on record. Since, the concurrent findings of facts are not shown to be suffering from any perversity of jurisdictional error, no interference is warranted by this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. However, there are certain mitigating circumstances which may necessitate interference with the order of punishment. Though, the suit has been decided way back on 08.03.2002, i.e., before passing of the order on the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, it ipso facto does not absolve the contemnors from their liability. However, in the instant case, the defendants have, indisputably, purged the contempt, i.e., have removed the construction raised in violation of the interim order, there has been a very long passage of