A suit was filed by the opposite party, inter alia, against the petitioners. The suit was for declaration of right, title, interest and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants to enter the suit land. An order of temporary injunction was passed on a petition being filed under the provisions of Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 By the temporary injunction the petitioners were res­trained from entering the suit land. It was alleged by the opposite party that this order was violated by the petitioners. A petition as contemplated under Order 39 Rule 2A was, the­refore, filed and the learned trial court found the petitioners guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of injunction, and ordered each of the petitioners to undergo civil prison for a term of 2 months. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dhubri, who has dismissed the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, this revision has been preferred. 2. At first Shri Chakrabarty, the learned counsel for the petitioners, took a stand that the finding arrived at by the two courts below was erroneous. However, realising the limitation of this Court sitting in revision the learned counsel submitted that even if the petitioners were guilty, the punishment awarded was highly disproportionate. According to the learned counsel award of reasonable compensation would have been a just puni­shment in the present case. A reference to Rule 2A of Order 39, however, shows that compensation is not visualised as one of the punishments. It is a different matter that after attach­ment is made and the disobedience continues, the property attac­hed may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award reasonable compensation as mentioned in sub-rule (2) of Rule 2A. In the present case no property was attached and there is nothing to show if the disobedience or breach had continued authorizing sale of the property. This being the position the submission of Shri Chakrabarty that the petitioners may be let off by awaking some compensation cannot be accepted. 3. A perusal of Rule 2A further shows that attachment as punishment is effective in case of continuing disobedience, but if the breach is only once attachment cannot serve any purpose. This being the position the submission of Shri Chakrabarty that the petitioners may be let off by awaking some compensation cannot be accepted. 3. A perusal of Rule 2A further shows that attachment as punishment is effective in case of continuing disobedience, but if the breach is only once attachment cannot serve any purpose. Reference may be made in this connection to Thakorlal vs. Chandulal AIR 1967 Gujrat 124 wherein P. N. Bhagwati, J. as his Lordship then was, held that where there is a solitary act of disobedience or breach of the injunction the remedy by way of attachment of the property is clearly inapplicable, and in such a case the proper remedy will be to detain the person guilty of disobedience or breach in civil prison or to commit him for contempt. 4. For the case at hand it is not necessary to convert the present proceeding into a proceeding for contempt, inasmuch as the learned counsel of both the sides have fairly agreed that the punishment awarded in the present case may be reduced to imprisonment for 1 (one) day for each of the petitioners. 5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by ordering that let each of the petitioner undergo civil imprisonment for 1 (one) day for their having violated injunction order duly promulgated by learned Assistant District Judge, Dhubri.