Short Note : The applicants filed a suit for possession and permanent injunction against the non-applicants in respect of a house. They alleged that the non-applicants on 2nd November 1970 took possession of the frontal room. They further alleged that the non-applicants were trying to take forcible possession of the adjoining room. An application for temporary injunction was filed in the trial Court. The trial Court issued an injunction on 7th November 1970 which was served on the non applicants on 8th November 1970. The applicants then filed an application for breach of the temporary injunction on the ground that even after the service of the temporary injunction, the non-applicants took forcible possession of the adjoining room. The applicants wanted that proceedings for breach of injunction be taken against the non-applicants. This application was dismissed by the trial Court. The applicants then went up in appeal which was also dismissed. Thereafter the present revision was filed. Held: The finding of the Courts below is that the non-applicants had taken possession of the adjoining room before 8th November 1970, i.e. before the service of the temporary injunction and therefore, they were not liable for breach of injunction. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before me that in so holding, the Courts below have taken into account an endorsement made by the process-server on the back of the notice which was served on the non-applicants, which says that the non-applicants were in possession before the service of the injunction. Learned counsel submits that this endorsement is spurious. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that this endorsement was there when the trial Court decided the matter. It was for the Courts below, which are Courts of facts, to consider whether this endorsement was spurious or genuine. This question being a question of fact cannot be agitated in revision. 2. Another contention that has been raised by the learned counsel is that on the application of the applicants the spot was inspected and the inspection report was not taken into account. The inspection report only shows that the possession of the adjoining room was taken through a window which was made in the frontal room. It does indicate that the adjoining room was not occupied by the non-applicants in the normal course, but forcible possession was taken. The inspection report only shows that the possession of the adjoining room was taken through a window which was made in the frontal room. It does indicate that the adjoining room was not occupied by the non-applicants in the normal course, but forcible possession was taken. However, the question in this case is, whether forcible possession was taken before the service of injunction or after it. On this point, the inspection report throws no light. The main question in cases or breach of injunction is, whether the alleged act which constitutes breach was committed before the service of injunction or after it. This is essentially a question of fact and raises no question of jurisdiction or illegality, or irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.