Judgment.-This revision petition has been preferred by defendants 1 and 2 who have been committed for contempt of Court by the learned First Additional Subordinate Judge of Guntur for having disobeyed the order passed by the learned District Munsiff of Guntur not to cut and remove the crops on the land to which the petitioners laid claim as owners, on the appointment of a receiver. The learned District Munsiff who heard the application for committing these petitioners for contempt dismissed the application as there were not sufficient grounds to hold that the defendants committed any disobedience of his order, but on appeal by the plaintiffs the learned Subordinate Judge of Guntur while holding that there was no sufficient evidence to establish the individual guilt of defendants 3 to g and that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove that they have taken part, still held that defendants 1 and 2 who were the owners of the land should be deemed responsible for the disobedience of the order of injunction. He further found that the defendants 1 and 2 had deliberately disobeyed the order of injunction and that they were liable to be punished by being sent to civil prison and committed them for a period of two months holding that that period would be sufficient. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this revision petition. I have been taken through the evidence and in particular the report of the Commissioner who was appointed for the purpose of harvesting the crops that were in dispute and also the judgments of the courts below. On a careful consideration of the evidence as also the reasoning given in the learned Subordinate Judge’s judgment, I am constrained to observe that the learned Subordinate Judge has not been correct in holding that defendants 1 and 2 were responsible for any disobedience. The Commissioner’s report which is the main basis for coming to the conclusion that there was any disobedience on the part of defendants 1 and 2 is most inconclusive on the point, and if that report is to be accepted, there can be no justification for holding that defendants 1 and 2 had committed any disobedience at all. In his judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge has himself observed that the Commissioner’s report does not implicate defendants 1 and 2 in such a manner as to convict them of contempt of Court. In his judgment, the learned Subordinate Judge has himself observed that the Commissioner’s report does not implicate defendants 1 and 2 in such a manner as to convict them of contempt of Court. A careful reading of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge leads me to the conclusion that the learned Subordinate Judge has acted upon the principle of constructive liability for the disobedience of the order. In cases where persons have to be committed for contempt of Court for the reason that they disobeyed the orders of Court, no question of constructive liability would arise. On the other hand it is absolutely essential that it should be proved beyond doubt that the persons who were charged with contempt did really disobey an order validly passed by Court and which was brought home to them, and a copy of which was personally served in the manner required by the procedure. Instead of giving a finding that the 1st and 2nd respondents before him have been proved to have committed contempt by disobedience of the order of Court, the learned Subordinate Judge has simply proceeded on certain inferences and surmises. I do not think such procedure is warranted. If, as I have said before, the Commissioner’s report is not conclusive and does not help in bringing home the guilt of disobedience to defendants 1 and 2, defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to be acquitted of any such offence. I do not think, therefore, that this judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge could be supported or upheld in so far as he has not found on any acceptable evidence that the 1st and 2nd defendants wilfully committed contempt by disobeying the order of the District Munsiff. Simply because defendants 1 and 2 are the owners and simply because they state that they were interested in the crop, it cannot be presumed that they should have instigated the people who actually cut away the crops, unless there is direct relationship established between the accused and persons who were actually responsible for the act of cutting and removing the crops. This has not been the case in the present petition before me. In such circumstances, I think the order of the learned Subordinate Judge should be set aside and the 1st and 2nd defendants should be declared not to have committed any contempt of Court. This has not been the case in the present petition before me. In such circumstances, I think the order of the learned Subordinate Judge should be set aside and the 1st and 2nd defendants should be declared not to have committed any contempt of Court. In the result this petition is allowed with costs. V.S. ----- Petition allowed.