JUDGMENT :

S.C. Datta, J. - This matter has come before us upon a reference by S.C. Mohapatra, J. the point involved in this case is short and simple. The point that falls for determination is whether an order of temporary injunction passed in presence of the lawyer for the party is sufficient notice of injunction to the party itself. According to the learned Judge, Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC is penal in nature and when drastic action under such provision is intended to be taken, notice to the lawyer by itself should not be sufficient for penalising the party violating the order of injunction. The learned Judge doubted the correctness of the decision reported in Arjun Jena and Another Vs. Brahmananda Pani and Others,

2. The facts lie in a short compass and may be summarised as follows:

The present Petitioner brought title Suit No. 39 of 1981 before the Addl. Subordinate Judge, Berhampur for partition of the disputed property claiming 1/7th share in it. The Defendants contested the suit raising various pleas. Eventually, the suit was decreed n preliminary form declaring Plaintiff's 1/7th share in the disputed property. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, D