ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed this revision. During pendency of the suit, an order of injunction had been issued directing the present opposite party not to carry on further construction of the house encroaching the suit land. An application under Order 39, Rule 2-A, C.P.C., was filed by the present petitioners alleg¬ing that in spite of the order of injunction, the opposite party proceeded to complete the construction which had been made upto lintel level at the time when injunction order was passed. The trial Court found that the construction was completed in spite of the order of injunction and accordingly directed that the oppo¬site party would remain under civil imprisonment for a period of two months. The present opposite party filed an appeal which has been allowed and the order imposing punishment has been vacated, mainly on the ground that the Commissioner who had visited the place was not a Survey-knowing Commissioner.

2. The question as to whether the disputed structure apper¬tains to plaintiff’s land or defendant’s land is a matter to be decided in the trial after evidence is recorded. Prima facie, however, it appears that the order of injunction had been violat¬ed. The