Jagat Narayan, J.—This is a revision application by two of the defendants against an appellate order of the District Judge Bhilwara ordering demolition of constructions made in defiance of an order of temporary injunction passed under O. 39 R. 2 of C.P.C. 2. For facts see page 213 3. During the pendency of the suit the lower appellate court passed an order requiring the applicants to demolish the constructions which they had made in defiance of the order of temporary injunction. Against that order the present revision application has been filed. The contention on behalf of the applicants is that no such order is warranted by any provision contained in the C.P.C. and that as there is a specific provision contained in R. 2(3) of O. 39 for imposing penalty for disobedience of the order of injunction there is no scope for the exercise of any inherent power of the court. 4. So far as the question imposing a penalty for disobedience of order of injunction is concerned I agree with the contention put forward on behalf of the applicants that R. 2(3) of O. 39 is exhaustive on the subject. 5. But the imposing of penalty on the party guilty of the disobedience does not provide any relief to the party in whose favour the order of temporary injunction is passed. The object of such an order is to safeguard the rights of a party against a threatened invasion by the other party. If in disobediente of the order of injunction such rights are invaded during the pendency of the suit relief can only be granted to the aggrieved party by invoking the inherent power of the court under sec. 151 Code of Civil Procedure. In this connection the decision in the State of Bihar Vs. Usha Devi (i) may be referred to. 6. In the suit the plaintiffs had in the alternative also claimed ownership over the land ABCD over which constructions were made by the defendants in defiance of the order of injunction. But they had no prima facie case with regard to the claim of ownership. They had a prima facie case with regard to their rights of easement in respect of the spouts and other apertures. The order of demolition of the entire structure was therefore not justified. But they had no prima facie case with regard to the claim of ownership. They had a prima facie case with regard to their rights of easement in respect of the spouts and other apertures. The order of demolition of the entire structure was therefore not justified. Only the order directing demolition of such part of the constructions as interfered with the rights of easement of the plaintiffs was justified. 7. The suit out of which the present proceedings have arisen has since been finally decided by this Court and a decree has been passed directing the defendants to demolish part of constructions raised by them over the land ABCD. In view of that decree it is not necessary to maintain the present order even in a modified form. The revision application is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above. 8. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs.