The revision petition arises from the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 16/78/2 of 1978, which was preferred against the order of learned Munsiff, Manipur, Imphal, dated 1.8.78 in Judicial Misc. Case No. 40 of 1977, ordering for detention of the opposite parties in civil prison, for disobedience of temporary injunction issued by the Court on 15.6.78 in title Suit No. 15 of 1977. 2. What happened is that after institution of the suit, the plaintiffs petitioners prayed for temporary injunction against the defendants- opposite-party, the suit having been one of declaration of title, eviction and permanent injunction. After bearing both sides, the learned Munsiff passed the order of temporary injunc­tion restraining defendants No. 1 and 2 from making any cons­truction over the suit land and from occupying the construction till the disposal of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came up to the Court under Order 39 Rule 2 C.P.C., supported by an affidavit alleging that the defendant: No. 1 and 2 breached 4bc terms of the temporary injunction by making further construction on the land and occupying the same. Both the parties adduced evidence on this matter and the learned Munsiff passed the aforesaid order, against which the appeal was preferred and the learned appellate Court set aside the order of detention of the defendants. 3. It is found that the learned Munsiff passed the order after disbelieving the witnesses of the plaintiffs but relying on an admission of the defendants to the effect that they have been occupying the land since May, 1977. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned appellate Court accepted the finding of the learned Munsiff that the defendants admitted that they have been occupying the land since May, 1977. In spite of that the learned appellate Court found that the plaintiffs could not prove violation of injunction order. Moreover, be found that the learned Munsiff did not specify the period of detention of the defendants in the civil prison, for which the order is laconic. The learned appellate Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 4. It is found that there is an admission of the defendants that they are occupying the land since May, 1977, bat this does not conclusively mean that they were not occupying it since before that time. The learned appellate Court, therefore, set aside the impugned order. 4. It is found that there is an admission of the defendants that they are occupying the land since May, 1977, bat this does not conclusively mean that they were not occupying it since before that time. To establish liability on a person for disobe­ying the injunction order of the Court, the party alleging such disobedience should prove the allegation not less stringently than in a criminal case. It is not safe to believe the story of dis­obedience merely relying on some admission of the defendants, which is rather ambiguous. There is no evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs for such disobedience. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned appellate Court. But, before parting with the record, I should like to mention here that it appears to be a boundary dispute and so the defendants must not raise any temporary or permanent which on that side of the land on which there is common boundary of the parties till disposal of the suit. With this observation, I reject the petition. No order as to costs.