( 1 ) THIS appeal by the defendant in a suit for partition arises out of an order of the trial court finding him guilty of disobedience of an order of injunction dated 15-12-1979 by which he was restrained from going upon the disputed land. An application alleging disobedience of that restraint order was filed by the plaintiff stating that the appellant had gone upon the land on 2-2-1980 and uprooted the Biri crop causing a loss of Rs. 150/- to him. The appellant, however, denied the allegations. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge decided the matter against the appellant and held him guilty of violation of the order of injunction. He accordingly directed attachment of his landed property of the value of Rs. 500/- for a period of one year. ( 2 ) EARLIER, when the appeal was taken up before a single Judge of this Court, the appellant, on the basis of a decision of this Court in the case of Roshanlal Thakur v. Kishanlal Kapoor, (1976) 42 Cut LT 1091 : (1977 Cri LJ NOC 23), submitted that in the absence of the list of properties to be attached and willingness of the plaintiff to pay the expenses for sending the defendant to civil prison, the application of the plaintiff under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure ('code' for short) was to be dismissed. The learned Judge entertained doubt regarding the correctness of the aforesaid decision and referred the matter to a Division Bench and thus this appeal has been placed before us for hearing. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant was not in a position to make any argument in support of the correctness of the decision. Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code does not prescribe either of the requirements, i. e. either to furnish the details of properties to be attached or to indicate the willingness of the applicant to pay the expenses for sending the offender to civil prison, while making the application. Rule 2-A of Order 39 of the Code does not prescribe either of the requirements, i. e. either to furnish the details of properties to be attached or to indicate the willingness of the applicant to pay the expenses for sending the offender to civil prison, while making the application. All that the Rule prescribes is that in case of disobedience of any injunction granted or order made under rule 1 or 2 of Order 39, or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order was made, the court concerned 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 three months. In the reported case, we do not find much discussion for taking the view that it was necessary for the applicant to submit a list of properties to be attached or express his willingness to pay the expenses for sending the offender to civil prison, much less any authority has been noticed for taking that view. It appears to be just an observation or view expressed by the learned Judge which has been made prominent in the head note of the report. ( 4 ) AT the time of making the report of disobedience of the order of injunction, the complainant himself is unaware as to whether the court will order for attachment of the properties of the offender or commit him to civil prison. Two disciplinary actions have been provided under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code, namely, attachment of property or detention. The two modes of punishment are the alternatives which can be awarded to the contemner according to the discretion of the court. At the stage of making of the application, therefore, it is very difficult for the complainant to know the mind of the court as to what kind of punishment would be awarded to the contemner. The attachment of the property of the guilty person is effected to ensure award of compensation whereas his detention intends to check the infringement and disobedience as such and punishes the person committing the disobedience or breach of the order of injunction. The attachment of the property of the guilty person is effected to ensure award of compensation whereas his detention intends to check the infringement and disobedience as such and punishes the person committing the disobedience or breach of the order of injunction. In that view of the matter and in the absence of any provision or any requirement under the relevant rule of O. 39, we find it difficult with due reference to subscribe to the view of the learned Judge in the reported case. Learned counsel for the appellant could neither point out any material to support the above view, nor could we discover any provision or authority to come to this conclusion. In our considered opinion, it is not necessary for the person making a complaint of disobedience either to give a list of properties that he wants to be attached or to indicate his willingness to bear the cost of sending the offender to the civil prison at the stage of making of the application itself. This question, if at all, may arise or be considered when the court dealing with the matter exercises its discretion to award either of the punishments. It must therefore be held that the view of the learned single Judge is unsustainable in law and the said observations are accordingly overruled. ( 5 ) THE appellant has been found on evidence to have committed breach of the order of injunction. It has further been found that by that act he has occasioned a loss to the extent of Rs. 150/- to the plaintiff. We have already said earlier that the order of attachment is to ensure award of compensation to the aggrieved party. That is also what has been specifically contemplated under sub-rule (2) of rule 2-A wherein it has been provided that the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto. The impugned order of attachment was passed in the year 1980 and its operation was stayed by this Court in the year 1981. By another order, this Court has also directed for early disposal of the suit. In view of all these facts and circumstances, revival of the order of attachment would not serve the ends of justice. The impugned order of attachment was passed in the year 1980 and its operation was stayed by this Court in the year 1981. By another order, this Court has also directed for early disposal of the suit. In view of all these facts and circumstances, revival of the order of attachment would not serve the ends of justice. Instead, we direct that the appellant should pay a sum of Rs. 50/- as compensation to the respondent within a period of two months from today, failing which the same be realised from him by due process of law. ( 6 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed subject to the modification of the order under appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly. .