Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishnu Sahai, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

2. The facts are that a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by the respondents 3 and 4 being suit No. 672 of 1998 under Order 1, Rule 8, C. P. C. The trial Court decreed "he suit vide judgment dated 11-1- 1999. Thereafter, the execu tion application was filed by the respon dents. The petitioner filed objections before the Court below which were dis missed by the executing Court by order dated 7-2- 2000. The petitioner preferred a revision which was decided on 13-4-2000. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision of the revisional Court whereby the punishments awarded to him has been reduced from three months simple im prisonment to that of 1-1/2 months simple imprisonment the petitioner allegedly committed breach of the judgment passed by the lower Court by infringing the copyright of the respondents 3 and 4 which ultimately resulted in the passing of punishment order by the executing Court and thereafter with modification by the revisional Court. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no copyright