The court emphasized that civil imprisonment and attachment of property can be alternative or simultaneous punishments, and should depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

P. K. MISRA,J.

( 1 ) THIS writ application is directed against an order passed by the executing Court as confirmed by the revisional court. There is no dispute that there is a decree for permanent injunction in favour of opposite party No. 1. An application was filed under Order 21, Rule 32, Code of Civil procedure (in short, the "c. P. C. ") before the executing court stating that the present petitioners had violated the decree of permanent injunction. The executing court after finding the present petitioners guilty of the alleged violation directed that the petitioners shall be detained in civil prison for a period of one month and their property shall remain attached for a period of six months. In revision, the said order having been confirmed, the present writ application has been filed.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners first contended that adequate opportunity of hearing has not been afforded by the executing court to the present petitioners to adduce evidence and as such the matter may be remanded. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 1, however, stated that the present petitioners had appeared before the executing court and, therefore, it cannot be said that adequate opportunity had not been afforded. After going through the L. C. R. , I am not in a position to come to the conclusion that adequate opportunity had not been given and as such there is no necessity for remanding the matter.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners then submitted that even assuming that there had been violation, the penalty imposed appears to be grossly disproportionate. The allegation in the petition indicated that the present petitioners had taken away few coconuts which had fallen down on the ground while opposite party No. 1 was plucking coconuts from the tree. It is also found that the present petitioners did not allow the opposite party No. 1 to repair the fence. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the nature of violation, the direction regarding civil imprisonment for a period of one month of the petitioners who are husband and wife and aged about 72 and 61 years respectively appears to be grossly disproportionate.

( 4 ) ORDER 21, Rule 32, C. P. C. provides :"r. 32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of conjugal righ'ts or for an injunction- (1) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of conjugal rights or for an injunction, has been passed, has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has wilfully failed to obey it, the decree may be enforced in the case of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for the specific performance of a contract or for an injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the attachment of his property, or by both. (2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific performance or for an injunction has been passed is a corporation, the decree may be enforced by the attachment of the property of the corporation or, with the leave of the Court, by the detention in the civil prison of the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by both attachment and detention. (3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) has remained in force for six months, if the judgment-debtor has not obeyed the decree and the decree-holder has applied to have the attached property sold, such property may be sold; and out of the prodeeds the Court may award to the decree-holder such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the judgment-debtor on his application. (4) Where the judgment-debtor has obeyed the decree and paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to pay, or where, at the end of six months from the date of the attachment, no application to have the property sold has been made, or if made has been refused, the attachment shall cease. (5) Where a decree for the specific formance of a contract o