The violation of injunction orders must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, and evidence must be connected to the disputed site to establish the violation.

1. The present revision petition is directed against the order dated October 22, 2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondents against the order dated April 28, 2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur was allowed and the present petitioner-Lakhbir Singh was ordered to be [detained in civil prison for a period of three months with a further direction that the trial Court would attach his property for awarding appropriate compensation to the applicants for violation of the injunction orders.

2. A suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the original plaintiff-Saroop Singh (since dead) for directing defendants-Lakhbir Singh and Iqbal Singh to remove the construction of malba in specific portion of the land in dispute. Along with the aforesaid suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "Code") was filed. Vide order dated December 17, 1994, the learned trial Court directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to the actual position obtaining at the spot regarding the nature of the suit property and also report as to whether any construction was raised or was being made in the suit property, if so by whom and the nature of the construction. A Local Commissioner was also directed to visit the spot and conduct the inspection in the presence of the parties by serving an appropriate notice, if possible.

3. Subsequently, an application under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code was filed by the plaintiff with the averments that the injunction order dated December 17, 1994 had been violated by defendant-Lakhbir Singh inasmuch as in spite of the status quo order, the said defendant had raised the construction of the shop in dispute at the spot in question. The plaintiff claimed that since there was a Violation, therefore, the aforesaid defendant Was liable to be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code and appropriate action should be taken against him.

4. The aforesaid application filed by the plaintiff was contested by defendant-Lakhbir Singh. He claimed that he had never violated the injunction order which in fact was not to his knowledge. It was further stated by him that the construction at the spot had been raised much prior to the filing of the present suit and, at no stage, anybody had ever objected to the aforesaid construction.

5. The learned trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence led by the parties found it as a fact that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to prove that the defendant had willfully, knowingly and intentionally ever disobeyed the orders of the Court. It was further observed by the learned trial Court that photographs sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff did not connect the same with the site in dispute. The Local Commissioner had also admitted in his cross-examination that he had not taken the photographer with him and was not aware as to who had brought the photographer. The trial Court further noticed that in his report the Local Commissioner had mentioned that there was no construction material lying on the spot in the suit property and that the said fact was got wrongly mentioned in his report. A categorical finding had been returned by the learned trial Court that from the evidence it seemed that the shop had been constructed by the defendant even prior to the filing of the suit by the plaintiff.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid finding recorded by the trial Court, the learned trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendant under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code.

7. The plaintiff (since dead), now represented by his legal representatives filed an appeal. The appeal was heard by the learned Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge reversed the order passed by the learned trial Court and held that the defendant had disregarded the order of status