JUDGMENT N.N. Sharma, J. - The appeal and cross objection are being disposed of by common judgment as these are directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-10-73 recorded by Shri Ram Sanehi, Addl. District Judge, Gorakhpur in Execution appeal no. 230 of 1970 arising out of Execution case No. 230 of 1972. 2. It appears that the respondents obtained a decree for possession and mandatory and prohibitory injunction against the appellants with respect to a portion of land situate in Siswan Bazar, district Gorakhpur adjoining the mosque towards south. Towards East was the railway boundary. Remaining boundaries have been defined in the decree which are not necessary to be detailed for the disposal of this appeal and cross objection. Judgment debtors did not comply with the directions of the Court in Execution case and so these proceedings were initiated by the decree-holders under Order 21, Rule 32, C.P.C., alleging that the judgment-debtors in utter defiance of injunction were interfering with the possession of decree-holders over the land in dispute by tethering their cattles, parking the carts and stacking bricks thereon. There was a prayer for detention of judgment-debtor in Civil prison. A notice was issued to the judgment-debtors who denied the aforesaid defiance. 3. Decree-holder examined Amir Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 the then S.O. police-station Kothtbhar who was ordered by S. D. M concerned on the application of the decree-holder addressed to the District Magistrate, to inspect locality and find the truth in the matter. The Station Officer vouched that he knew the judgment-debtor Ramzan Ali from before and conducted an enquiry and submitted his report paper no. 3-A/1 dated 8-6-69. He vouched about its accuracy and found on local inspection the aforesaid articles of judgment-debtors on the land in dispute. 4. Kishan Lal, P. W. 2 is the Photographer who visited the spot and prepared the photos paper no. 2) Ga, negative of which was paper No. 28Ga. According to the statement of Amir Hasan Khan, P, W. 1, S.O. and decree-holder Amzad Ali, P. W. 3 these photos were of the land in dispute and the encroachment was of judgment-debtor as vouched by Amzad Ali, P.W. 3 who further testified that the judgment-debtors in utter defiance of the order of the Court did not persist in the interference. 5. 5. In rebuttal there was the statement of Usman Ali, D. W. 1, who denied the alleged encroachment and put forward the case that the alleged encroachment was made by one Mohd. Amin, son of Sahabzadi, decree-holder no. 1. This allegation was found false as admittedly Mohd. Amin lived in Sardarnagar and was not living in Siswa Bazar at the time in question. Both the courts below believed the evidence of decree-holder. Learned appellate Court partly upheld the order of detention of one week awarded by Sri O. P. Srivastava, learned Munsif, Gorakhpur on 16-12-72. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. On behalf of the decree-holder it was pointed out that identity of the land, photo of which was drawn, has not been established. The Photographer did not know the land in dispute. However, there are the statements on oath of Amir Hasan Khan, P. W. 1 and Amjad Ali, P. W. 3 who testified that the photos related to the land in dispute. I have checked the photos with the land in dispute as discussed above and it is obvious that these photos do relate to the land which fell within the aforesaid boundaries and about which a decree had been drawn in favour of decree-holder. Similarly the next contention that these articles belonged to Mohd. Amin has also no substance. There is no concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below on this point. I see no good reason to discard the same. It was further prayed that fine may be imposed in place of civil detention. Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not justify the imposition of fine in place of detention in civil prison. Similarly there is no provision for compensation in this case when no property of judgment debtor has been attached earlier for defiance of the injunction order. The sentence of detention is not excessive specially when the judgment debtors are adament and did not comply with the injunction order. It shall be simply a mockery of the Rule of law if such defiance of the decree of courts of competent jurisdiction, was to be ignored in this manner. 8. No other point was argued before me. So this appeal is devoid of force. 9. It shall be simply a mockery of the Rule of law if such defiance of the decree of courts of competent jurisdiction, was to be ignored in this manner. 8. No other point was argued before me. So this appeal is devoid of force. 9. As regards the cross-objection, learned appellate court rightly observed that Smt. Mahraji, the widow and her two daughters namely Sakeena and Zaibun could not be held to have willingly disobeyed the decree specially when they had no control over the male members of the house. After all they were dependents upon the male folk of the house and they could not prevent them if they intended to disobey the decree. So these ladies were entitled to the benefit of doubt in such matter. 10. Under the circumstances learned appellate court below was justified in exonerating them. Thus I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment nor any substantial question of law has been raised before me to merit interference in this appeal. 11. In the result the appeal and cross-objection both are dismissed. Costs easy. Stay order dated 24-1-74 is vacated herewith. Send the record at once to the execution court for necessary enforcement of its decree.