JUDGMENT 1. - This a contempt petition against Suleman. On 31.3.80, after hearing the parties, this Court directed the District judge to record evidence and send a report on the fallowing questions:- (i) Whether any construction has been made by the defendant Suleman over the land which is in dispute in Civil Suit No, 231/76 giving rise to S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 480; 72-Suleman v. Chiranjilal and another ? 2. If it is found that there exists a construction over the said land, whether the said construction was made after 23rd Nov., 1974. 2. The District Judge recorded the evidence and has sent a report in which he was found positively that construction has been made by Suleman after 23.11.74. 3. A report of the Commissioner was received in April, 1982, but none of the parties filed any objection to it Even then, I have allowed Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for Suleman, to argue the case to show that the report of the District judge is vitiated and deserves to be rejected. 4. Having brand Mr. Mathur and Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the parties. I am of the opinion that the District judge has thoroughly considered the evidence of AW1 Shiv Bhagwan. AW2 Kishanlal. AW3 Damoder and AW4 Deepchand produced by the applicant Chiranjilal arid Suleman NAW1, NAW2 Balvir Singh and NAW3 Islarnuddin. The District Judge has also given due consideration to Ex 1. Ex. 2 and Ex.3 documents produced by the applicant and Ex.A 1 to Ex.A 8 produced by Suleman. It is significant to note at the very outset that before this Court when the application was being argued, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has absolutely no intention to make any construction on the land in question during the pendency of the appeal. He further undertook on behalf of his client that no construction will be made on the land in dispute so long as the appeal is pending. This undertaking was given when the respondent moved an application that the appellant Suleman has begun to collect material for making unauthorised construction. It is significant to note that appellant Suleman did not controvert by any reply that there was come constructions already standing on it in the form of a shop. This undertaking was given when the respondent moved an application that the appellant Suleman has begun to collect material for making unauthorised construction. It is significant to note that appellant Suleman did not controvert by any reply that there was come constructions already standing on it in the form of a shop. It is also significant that while giving the undertaking the learned counsel for the appellant did not mention that the existing constructions are there and new constructions would not be made. 5. In the above background. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the evidence led by the parties in this case. The sale deed produced by the panchayat makes a mention of the land and not of any construction. The learned District Judge on a thorough consideration of the evidence has held that the constructions have been made after the under taking was given in this Court on 23-11-74. I am inclined to accept the report of the District Judge and agree with the reasons mentioned therein and the appreciation of the evidence. 6. The respondent Suleman is, therefore held guilty of committing contempt of thee order of this Court. 7. Mr. Mathur on the point of punishment in the case of contempt petition (160/78) his relied upon the judgment of Sahib Zada Abdul Bais Khan v. Budhsingh Bapna , AIR 1973 Raj 201 ) .paras 31 to 33 of the above decision are as under:- "31. The attachment of the property of the appellant in the circumstances of the case is not justified under the law. Order 39, Rule 2(3) and (4) read:- 3. In case of disobedience or of breach of any such terms, the Court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the mean time the Court directs his release. 4. No attachment under this rule shall remain in force more than one year at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance if any, to the party entitled thereto. 32. 4. No attachment under this rule shall remain in force more than one year at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit, and shall pay the balance if any, to the party entitled thereto. 32. In case of disobedience, or breach of any terms of injunction the Court granting an injunction may inflict the punishment either (a) by ordering the attachment of the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or (b) by ordering the person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding six months unless in the meantime the court directs his release. The purpose any duration of the attachment of the property are specified in sub-rule 4. It shall not be for more than one year and if at the end disobedience or breach continues the property may be sold and the Court any award compensation if it thinks fit out of the sale proceeds. This sub-rule is designed to enforce continued obedience a failure in which is to be visited by the consequences indicated. In the circumstances of the case and in the light of the view we have taken about the non attachability of the allowance attachment is not justified and is therefore, set aside. 33. Regarding the question of sentence of two months' simple imprisonment we must confess, it has caused the anxious thought. The jurisdiction conferred for punishing a contumacious party is to vindicate the supremacy of the Rule of Law and not to benefit parties. The Court is not concerned with the legal effect of the order. The test is whether the authority has been disregarded. The answer is plain that the appellant contrived to get round the Court's mandate. And in this view of the matter we cannot treat it as a mere technical disobedience arising out of some misunderstanding. We are accordingly of the view that a sentence of 7 days simple imprisonment will serve the ends for which the rule has been enacted. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of two months to one of seven days." 8. Mr. Mathur has further referred to a decision of Magna v. Rustan (1961 RLW 217) . Mr. We are accordingly of the view that a sentence of 7 days simple imprisonment will serve the ends for which the rule has been enacted. We, therefore, reduce the sentence of two months to one of seven days." 8. Mr. Mathur has further referred to a decision of Magna v. Rustan (1961 RLW 217) . Mr. Jain on the contrary submits that inspite of the finding of the District judge and the case remaining pending for such a long time, the contemner has not tendered any apology and therefore, he must be sent to jail for three months. In addition to it, the constructions made should be demolished. 9. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, since the respondent Suleman has been held guilty of committing contempt by disobedience of the undertaking, which he has given and which is to be treated as an injunction, his property would be attached and would remain under attachment till the constructions made after the undertaking and referred to in this older, are demolished by him. The attachment would continue, and if he failed to demolish the constructions for a period of six months, then the property of Suleman would be auctioned. Suleman is said to be a person of old age and therefore, I do not intend to send him to jail, if he demolishes the property within a period of one month from today. However, in case the property is not demolished, within one month from today, he would be detained in civil prison for a term of one month, in addition to the above attachment and salt- proceedings. The Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Sambhar is further directed to ensure the demolition of the property if the same is not done within one month, and realise the costs of the same from the contemner. 11. The contempt application is accepted, as indicated above. *******