( 1. ) THIS is the defendant No. 1 s revision against the lower appellate Courts Order dated 14-11-1977 whereby he was directed to be detained in the civil prison for a term of 15 days for disobedience of the interim exparte injunction granted against him during the pendency of the suit.

( 2. ) NON-APPLICANTS No. 1 to 4 (plaintiffs) had filed the suit against the applicant-defendant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 5 (defendant No. 2)for declaration of their right and title to the piece of land as per the plaint schedule and for permanent injunction, restraining the applicant-defendant no. 1 and the non-applicant No. 5 (defendant No. 2), from interfering in the plaintiffs possession. On 31-1-1970, interim exparte injunction was passed against the applicant-defendant No. 1 and the non-applicant No. 5 peru, restraining them to sell the suit land and the house thereon, until further orders. This interim temporary injunction Order was served on the applicant-defendant No. 1 on 18-2-1970. The said interim temporary injunction Order was, however, vacated on 17-6-1970. Plaintiffs suit was also finally dismissed. The applicant-defendant No. 1, during the period when the interim exparte temporary injunction was in force, sold the suit property to kunwarji, Bapu and Hemraj, vide the sale-deed dated 23-5-1970. Plaintiffs-non-applicants moved the Court under Order 39, rule 2 (3) Civil Procedure code (new rule 2- A of Order 39, Civil Procedure Code) for action against the defendants for disobedience of the interim exparte Order of temporary injunction. The Court, being satisfied that the Order of temporary injunction had been disobeyed, ordered the detention in civil jail of the applicant-defendant no. 1 and his son Peru for a period of one month and, further, ordered the attachment of the suit property in appeal against the said Order, the lower appellate Court, while confirming the finding of the Court below regarding the disobedience of the order modified the penal part of the Order to the extent that only the applicant-defendant No. 1 was directed to be detained in civil jail for a period of 15 days only. Now, it is against this modified Order reducing the period of detention in civil jail that the defendant No. 1 has preferred the present revision.

( 3. ) THE learned counsel for the applicant-defendant No. 1 has urged before me that the applicant-defendant No. 1 had acted in all bona fides in selling the suit property under the registered sale-deed. It has been urged by him that by the suit which was filed against him, he was being simply harassed as is apparent from the circumstances that the ex parte order of temporary injunction had been vacated during the pendency of the suit itself and finally the suit of the plaintiffs was also dismissed on merits. The learned counsel for the non-applicants-plaintiffs has urged before me that whatever be the case, breach of the order on the part of the applicant-defendant No. 1 was clear, and as such he could not escape the consequences of disobedience of the Order of injunction.

( 4. ) I have considered the arguments on both sides. Normally, High court is loath to interfere in revision unless there is procedural illegality or flagrant injustice committed by the Courts below. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 2 of order 39 Civil Procedure Code (new Rule 2-A of Order 39 Civil Procedure code) has to be understood in its proper perspective. The purpose of sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of Order 39 (new rule 2-A of Order 39), is not to punish a person who disobeys injunction Order, but to enforce the Order. Where the wrong done by disobedience of the Order is remedied and status quo ante is brought, the delinquent cannot be sent to prison nor the property attached (See Sitaram v. Ganesh Das, (AIR 1973 All. 449.) and State of Bihar v. Rani Sonabati Kumari, ( AIR 1961 S C 221.) ).

( 5. ) WHERE the disobedience of Order has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice and has not adversely affected the rights and intere