JUDGMENT Mithan Lal, J. - In this civil revision the point for consideration is whether the court, after the dismissal of the suit and the appeal, could pass an order for attachment of defendant's properties due to disobedience of an order of injunction. 2. The plaintiff brought a suit in 1953 for possession and demolition of certain constructions and an injunction was issued on 2-6-1953 restraining the defendants from making further constructions. This order was later on modified on 4th June, 1953 inasmuch as it was further limited by ordering that the defendants could complete the temple and the Parikrama but they could not make other constructions. On 28-9-1954 an application was made by the plaintiff that the defendants had disobeyed the injunction inasmuch as they had constructed a kotha and the parikrama. This application remained pending and orders thereon were passed on 4th Jan. 1957. During this time the suit was dismissed on 3-11-1954 and the appeal filed against that judgment was also dismissed on 20-11-1956. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under Or. 39, R. 2-A (1) the court can only pass an order "while the suit is proceeding" and once the suit has been decided, and the appeal has also been decided the court becomes functus officio and could not pass any order. This contention of the learned counsel has a good deal of force. 4. Rule 2-A was substituted for sub-Rs. (3) and (4) of Or. 39 by a notification published in the U.P. Gazette on 27-9-1941. The former sub-R. (3) was as follows: - "In case of disobedience or breach of any such terms, the court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding six months unless in the meantime the court directs his release." 5. This has now been substituted by the following: - "In the case of disobedience to an injunction issued under sub-Rr. This has now been substituted by the following: - "In the case of disobedience to an injunction issued under sub-Rr. (1) and (2) of R. 2-A or of breach of any terms of any such injunction the court, in which the suit is proceeding may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach, to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the court directs his release." 6. A comparison of the old and the new sub-rule will show that by this substitution of the old sub-rule (3) the powers of the court were intended to be extended; but while doing so, the expression, "the court in which the suit is proceeding" was substituted for the expression, "the court granting injunction." The latter expression was wide enough and allowed the court which granted the injunction to dispose of the matter relating to disobedience at any time. But the substituted expression has now limited the jurisdiction of the Court. The court can only pass an order on an application for disobedience of injunction as long as the suit is proceeding. Once the suit is concluded, whether in the original court or in the appeal, the court would become functus officio for purposes of taking any action or passing any order on the application for disobedience of injunction. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. Even though the application for disobedience was made a few weeks before the dismissal of the suit, yet that application was not disposed of and was kept pending till two or three months after the dismissal of the appeal. Once the suit was decided or the suit was not proceeding, the court could not pass any order and so the order passed by the court below was passed without jurisdiction and has to be set aside. 7. The revision must, therefore, succeed. 8. The revision is allowed but no order is made as to costs. The order passed by the court below is set aside. The notice is discharged.