Judgment 1. The question which arises for decision in this case is whether the petitioner can be punished under R. 2 (3) of O. 39 of the Civil P. C. for violating the undertaking given by him incorporated by the Court in its order disposing of an application for temporary injunction. 2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for recovery of possession of the properties described in the schedules to the plaint and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from flowing their drain water and constructing any structure on the land and from changing its features. At the time of hearing of the injunction matter, the defendants filed affidavits stating that they would maintain status quo and would not bring about any change therein. On this undertaking, the trial Court vacated the ad interim order of injunction earliar passed. The undertaking was specifically mentioned and it was expressly said that on that ground the injunction order was being withdrawn. Later on, the petitioner dug a drain and made certain changes in a wall standing on the land. The plaintiff complained before the trial Court. The Court held the petitioner guilty and directed him to be detained in civil prison for one week. On appeal, the Order has been maintained. The petitioner has now come to this Court. 3. Mr. Chandra Sekhar contended that the petitioner could not be punished for breach of an injunction order as there was no order of injunction issued by Court. 4. Having considered the argument. I do not think the learned counsel is right. The undertaking given by the petitioner solemnly before the Court was taken into account and was the foundation of the order rejecting the injunction application. In this circumstance, the undertaking must be deemed to be a part of the order passed by the Court and its violation must render the petitioner liable to punishment. To interpret the law otherwise would render it unreasonable and absurd. My view is supported by the decision in A. B. Gurumurthi Chetty V/s. Sella Perumal Pillai ( AIR 1936 Mad 651 ). I therefore, hold that the patitioner has been rightly held liable by the Courts below. 5. Mr. Chandra Shekhar also argued that there is no clear finding recorded by the Courts below about the violation of the undertaking. I do not think he is right. The finding recorded in para. I therefore, hold that the patitioner has been rightly held liable by the Courts below. 5. Mr. Chandra Shekhar also argued that there is no clear finding recorded by the Courts below about the violation of the undertaking. I do not think he is right. The finding recorded in para. 9 of the judgment of the lower appellate court is clear and explicit against petitioner. 6. For the reasons stated above this Civil revision fails and is dismissed. As the opposite party has not appeared, there will be no order as to costs.