( 1. ) THE applicant Umraosingh, who is the surviving defendant in a suit by the opponents, has been sentenced under Order 39 Rule 2 (3) C. P. C. , for disobedience of a temporary injunction order. He had gone to the superior Court against the order itself but it has been maintained. Against the order of punishment, he went up in appeal which has also been dismissed. Now he has come up in revision alleging that for one thing, he was acting in a new capacity, and he was not interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, hut was entering property that had been in his possession from his father.

( 2. ) THIS case raises questions, as to whether a person charged with disobedience of an injunction order could question the facts on which the order had been passed; and secondly, whether the person who had been restrained in one capacity could disobey the order, and plead that he was doing so in another capacity.

( 3. ) THOUGH the facts of the suit are somewhat complicated, those relevant for our present consideration are simple. The plaintiffs alleged that on a part of their pucca tenancy they had permitted the present applicant and his father Daulatsingh who was also a defendan