The court's decision emphasized the need for specific and proportionate penalties for the violation of injunction orders, considering the extent and duration of property attachment.

P. K. TRIPATHY, J.

( 1 )

( 2 ) AN order under Order 39, Rule 2-A, c. P. C. passed by the civil Judge (Sr. Division), 2nd Court, Cuttack on 19/11/1998 in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1995, recording the finding that revision-petitioners are guilty of violating the order of injunction passed the order for attachment of their property and for their detention in civil prison for 7 days. That was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in misc. _appeal No. 121 of 1998. That was disposed of by the First Add1. District Judged, cuttack as per the impugned judgment dated 14/12/2001. Against that the present civil revision has been filed. .

( 3 ) THE detail facts mentioned in the pleadings of the parties is not necessary to be noted here. The relevant facts which are necessary to note here are that on 11. 11. 1994 ad interim ex parte order of injunction was passed, against the present petitioner with notice to them to appear on 3. 1. 1995. They entered appearance on 3,1. 1995 and took time to file show cause but as alleged, on 29. 1. 1995 they violated the order of injunction and plucked coconuts from the trees standing on the suit land and caught fishes from the pond situated jn the suit land. When the opposite party brought motion for violation of the order of Injunction, petitioner contested the same by denying to the allegation simplicitor. At the stage of inquiry opposite party adduced evidence of two witnesses including the opposite party examined as p. W. No. 1 in proof of the allegation of catching fishes and plucking of coconuts in the alleged manner on 29. 11. 1995. Rebuttal evidence from the side of the petitioner was adduced by the examining the petitioner No. 2 as the solitary witness. In his evidence he took the plea of absence from the occurrence village on 29. 1. 1995 and stated that on that date he had come to Cuttack to attend the Bank in his official capacity and absence of petitioner. Nos. 1 and 3 by stating that they had gone to jajpur. Evidence in that respect was found not creditworthy. Besides that the trial Court found that 29. 1. 1995 was a Sunday, i. e. a holiday. Keeping in view the evidence on record, learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) found the allegation of violation of the order of injunction proved and accordingly directed that the properties of the revision-petitioners be attached and each of them be detained in civil prison for seven days Learned Addl1 District Judge on a fresh consideration of the entire fact, evidence and position of law, concurred with the court below on factual finding as well as the punishment imposed.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying on the case of Smt. Purnima Bhanja deo and others v. Smt. Bishnupriya Senapati and others, argues that the evidence on record does not clinchingly prove the allegation of catching fishes and plucking of coconuts and therefore the relevant findings by the trial Court and the concurrent findings of the appellate court are bad both in fact and law. In that process he read the evidence of all the three witnesses. After hearing the same, this Court finds that appreciation of evidence by the courts below is neither illegal nor perverse. Therefore, factual assessment of the evidence made by the Court below is not to be Interfered with by this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court does not interfere with the findings on facts relating to the proof of breach of order of injunction by the petitioner.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further argues that while imposing the penalty for the breach of order of status quo learned civil Judge has not taken care of the provision in Rule 2-A inasmuch as he has not stated as to for what length of time the property shall remain under attachment and what is the extent of that property. He also argues that the order for civil imprisonment for seven days is in excess to the complained act alleged against the petitioner when the suit is for partition. He argued t