Judgment K.B.N. Singh, J. The two petitioners have filed this revision petition against the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge allowing the appeal of the opposite party and holding the petitioners guilty under Or. 39, rule 2, Sub-rule (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure for disobeying an injunction order passed in the suit and directing each of them to be detained in civil prison for four months. 2. The short facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows. The plaintiffs opposite party filed a suit being Title Suit No. 222 of 1965 on the 24th August 1965 for partition of certain properties including plot no. 366 of Khata no. 41 measuring 13 dhurs situated in village Kalyanpur in which the plaintiffs claimed share to the extent of 9 dhurs. There was also a prayer in the plaint for permanent injunction restraining defendants 3 and 4 (petitioners) from raising a brick wall on the suit land. In the 25th August, 1965, the plaintiffs filed a petition for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from dismantling and removing the kolhu or removing the wall constructed by the plaintiffs or changing its, status quo. On the said petition, the court passed an interim order on the 25th August, 1965, after hearing the plaintiffs' counsel in terms of the prayer asking the petitioners to show cause by the 11th September, 1965. Before that, on the 30th August 1965 the plaintiffs filed a petition that the petitioners wanted to remove the kholhu of the plaintiffs as also to dismantle two rooms of brick, and as a matter of fact they had removed the Kolhu : and hence they prayed for appointment of a pleader commissioner for a report on the aforesaid two points. On this petition, the court appointed Shri Wahidul Hassan as pleader commissioner and directed him to report by the 2nd September, 1965. The Commissioner submitted his report on the 2nd September, 1965; and therefore, on the 6th September, 1965, the plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 39 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the petitioners were making construction in presence of the commissioner also and that the Kolhu and the wall alleged to have been constructed by the plaintiffs were also demolished and thus they alleged disobedience of the interim injunction order passed by the court by the petitioners. 3. 3. On the 12th November, 1965, the petitioners filed a rejoinder petition denying the service of notice and asserting that it bas been fraudulently suppressed and they further denied that the constructions as noted by the pleader commissioner, on the suit land were made after the service of notice. It may be noted here that the said petition of the plaintiffs under order 39 rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been registered as Miscellaneous Case No. 168 of 1965. 4. At the hearing of the miscellaneous case, on behalf of the plaintiffs besides the pleader commissioner (A.W. 1), the serving peon Binda Behari Pandey and the attesting witness Gani Mian were examined as A.W. 4 and A.W. 2 respectively and one of the plaintiffs, namely Bishwanath Sah was examined as A.W. 3 and, the pleader's report and the service report were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant petitioners, two witnesses' were examined, namely, Aziz Mian (O.W. 1) and Babu Ram Singh (O.W. 2), defendant No.4 in the suit. They deposed that the construction had been made much earlier and prior to the institution of the suit. The learned Munsif dismissed the miscellaneous case filed by the opposite party against the petitioners; and, then the opposite party filed an appeal before the District Judge which was heard by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge. He allowed the appeal and held the petitioners guilty of deliberately disobeying the court's order and directed them to be detained in civil prison, as already mentioned above. Being aggrieved by that order, the present revision petition has been filed by defendants 3 and 4 in this court. 5. Mr. Kailash Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has urged that as the learned Munsif, having come to the conclusion that there was no violation of injunction order by the petitioners, dismissed the application of the plaintiffs under Order 39 rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lay .against this order and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel has urged that it is only in case of an order passed under sub-rule (3) of rule (2) of Order 39 for disobedience of a court's order, that is appeal-able under Order 43, rule 1 (r) of the Code, which runs as under: "1. Learned Counsel has urged that it is only in case of an order passed under sub-rule (3) of rule (2) of Order 39 for disobedience of a court's order, that is appeal-able under Order 43, rule 1 (r) of the Code, which runs as under: "1. An appeal shall lie from the following orders under the provisions of section 104, namely: (r) an order under rule 1, rule 2, rule 4 or rule 10 of Order 39. The above rule does not admit of any narrow construction as urged by Mr. Roy. An order of the court rejecting a petition alleging disobedience of an injunction is as much an order under sub-rule (3) of rule (2) of Order 39 as an order allowing such petition for the purpose of the said sub• rule and an appeal lies against either of them under Order 43, rule 1 (r) of the Code. The view which I have taken receives support from a Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Ottapurokkal Thazath Suppi and others Vs. Sayid Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunchi Koya as also from two single Bench decisions in Diwan Chand Vs. Jharia Caol Co. and Chaturbhujdas Parmanandas Vs. Natvarlal Tribhovandas. 4. Mr. Roy has also urged that the order of dismissal of the miscellaneous case for punishing the petitioner for contempt was tantamount to acquittal, and, therefore, the procedure other than a regular appeal should have been adopted by the aggrieved party setting aside such acquittal. This argument has also no substance. It is true that the test to be applied for holding a party guilty of disobedience is more or less analogous to that of an accused in a criminal case and in that sense the proceeding may be of a quasi-criminal nature. But for that reason alone the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code relating to acquittal cannot be imported in a civil proceeding as urged by Mr. Roy. 5. The submission of Mr. Roy that against the order of dismissal the plaintiffs had no locus standi to file an appeal is also without any merit. The interim injunction having been issued at the instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs being a party affected by the dismissal order, arising out of the injunction matter had every right to maintain an appeal against the order of the learned Munsif rejecting his petition. The interim injunction having been issued at the instance of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs being a party affected by the dismissal order, arising out of the injunction matter had every right to maintain an appeal against the order of the learned Munsif rejecting his petition. There are cases which lay down that an action under sub-rule (3) of rule (2) of Order 39 can be initiated at the instance of a party and not otherwise. Disobedience being in the nature of contempt, the court is empowered to deal with the matter if it is moved by the aggrieved party as laid down in a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Kuchappa and another Vs. Sachi Devi and other.' 6. Mr. Roy has lastly submitted that the lower appellate court should not have lightly interfered with the discretion exercised by the trial court whose order was alleged to have been disobeyed. Reading the two judgments, it appears that the lower court has fully analysed the matter and has taken every-thing into consideration. The final court of fact has come to a categorical finding that the notice of interim injuction was served upon the petitioners. It also came to the conclusion that there was no dispute regarding the identity of the suit land before the commissioner who visited the spot, and on a full discussion of the evidence, it came to the conclusion that the petitioners disobeyed the injunction order after service of notice and that the action of the petitioners was a deliberate one in disobedience and in defiance of the court's order. The final court of fact also disbelieved the petitioner's case that the constructions in question were made prior to the institution of the suit or earlier than the injuction order. No illegality has been pointed out with these findings so as to call for any interference with the order of the lower appellate court in exercise of revisional powers of this court. The final court of fact has given good reasons for coming to its finding and has not set aside the order of the trial court on any flimsy grounds. That the appellate court has the same powers as the trial court in such a matter is held in a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Ottapurakkal Thazath Suppi and others Vs. Sayid Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunchi Koya. 7. That the appellate court has the same powers as the trial court in such a matter is held in a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Ottapurakkal Thazath Suppi and others Vs. Sayid Alabi Mashur Koyanna Koya Kunchi Koya. 7. The maximum period for which the petitioners may be detained in civil prison under the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 2 of Order 39 of the Code is six months. In a case like this, in my opinion, the dignity of the court's order will be well vindicated even if the petitioners are detained for two months each. The order is, accordingly, modified to this extent only. 8. With the above modification in the period of sentence of imprisonment, the revision petition is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Application dismissed.