Justice Rajiv Sharma, J.

This revision petition is instituted against the order rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Hamirpur, H.P., in C.M.A No. 26 of 2002, dated 8.6.2006.

2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this revision petition are that the father of the petitioner Sh. Malhi Ram has instituted a Civil Suit bearing No. 196/1 of 1987 on 11.9.1987 against the respondents. A compromise decree was passed on 22.4.1988. The operative portion of the judgment reads as under:

“In view of the compromise arrived at today and the statements of the parties recorded, I pass a decree per terms of the compromise for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining both the parties from raising any construction, cutting any tree or changing the nature of the land compromised in Khasra Nos. 6, 59, 61, 70, 71, 85, 96, 97, 99, 106, 101, 102, 103, 104, 115, 166, 169, 173, 179, 182, 184, 186, 188, 187, 189, 190, 192, 194, 196, 197, 200, 201, 209, 210, 212, 216, 217, 222, 224, 225, 229, 232, 233, 235, measuring 128 kanals 14 marlas situated in Tika Dulana Gujran, Tappa Kuthera, Tehsil and Distt. Hamirpur, H.P, till the partition between the parties is finally sanctioned. It is further ordered and decreed that the defendants shall complete the roofing of 1/3rd of the uncovered portion of their house on an area of 15’ x 15’. The parties are left to bear their own costs.”

3. Thereafter, a decree was also drawn. The respondents instituted petition under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC before the Executing Court. According to them, the petitioner has demolished a double storyed tinposh room in the month of November-October, 2001 and constructed new house on Kh. No. 99 with lintel in violation of the decree of the Court. The suit land was not partitioned. The reply was filed by the petitioner. According to the reply filed, he was not party to the litigation and was not aware of the same. He has not raised any fresh construction. The old house which had outlived its life was demolished and new house was constructed on the old foundation.

4. The issues were framed by the Executing Court on 4.8.2003. The Executing Court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner to be sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month and in addition to this, his property was ordered to be attached. It is, in these circumstances, the present petition has been filed against the order dated 8.6.2006.

5. Mr. Nitin Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his client was not aware of the judgment and decree rendered in Civil Suit No. 196/1 of 1987. He was not a party in Civil Suit No. 196/1 of 1987. He has not willfully disobeyed the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1988. On the other hand, Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Advocate, for the respondents has supported the order dated 8.6.2006.

6. I have heard the learned Advocates and gone through the pleadings and record very carefully.

7. The compromise decree was passed on 22.4.1988. The operative portion of the judgment has already been reproduced, hereinabove. A decree for permanent prohibitory injunction was passed restraining both the parties from raising any construction, cutting any trees or changing the nature of the land till the partition between the parties was finally sanctioned. Late Sh. Malhi Ram, the original plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 196/1 of 1987 was the father of the petitioner Sh. Gian Chand.

8. PW-1 Hem Raj testified that the petitioner has raised the construction in the month of October, 2001 by demolishing portion of the verandah. Thereafter, he made the pucca structure. It was situate on Kh. No. 99. He has also raised the two rooms, bath-room and balcony in the month of November, 2001. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the partition proceedings were still going on.

9. PW-2 Kamlesh Chand deposed that a new room was added after demolishing the old room in the month of October-November, 2001. Thereafter, lintel was also put over the same. Two rooms w