JUDGMENT 1. - Ramkishan non-petitioner had instituted Civil Original Suit No. 27 of 1985 in the Court of Munsif Bikaner on January 14, 1985 for permanent Injunction against the petitioner. It was alleged in the plaint by Ramkishan non-petitioner that he was nephew of the petitioner Poonamcharid. Their residential houses were situated in village Gadiala. These houses were constructed by the common ancestor of die parties named Ramnarain. Adjoining the 'Barsaties' of the houses of the plaintiff and the defendant, there was a Bakhal (open place like court yard) measuring about 30 feet or 32 feet wide and 40 feet or 45 feet long. Both the parties were in possession of 1/2 share of the Bakhal parallel to the alignment of their respective houses. There was a main gate of this Bakhal through which the parties entered in order to reach their respective houses through the Bakhal. They also tied their cattle in the Bakhal. It was alleged that petitioner Poonam Chand was raising a wall in front of the main gate of the house of the plaintiff and thus wanted to close the gate. He was also proposing to make constructions which would block the plaintiffs passage through the Bakhal to his house and also the gate of his house. In this suit the plaintiff prayed for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from raising any wall in the plaintiff's share of the Bakhal and from in any way obstructing the plaintiffs access through the Bakhal to his gate of the house and from dispossessing the plaintiff from his share of the Bakhal. Along with the suit plaintiff Ramkishan filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code wherein he prayed for a temporary injunction against the defendant that defendant-petitioner be restrained from in any way occupying the Bakhal in possession of the plaintiff by raising any wall and from creating any obstruction which may result in ejectment of the plaintiff and obstruction in his having access to his house. On this application, tire Additional Munsif Bikaner issued an order to the effect that status quo be maintained till the next date. Notice of this order was served on the petitioner. On this application, tire Additional Munsif Bikaner issued an order to the effect that status quo be maintained till the next date. Notice of this order was served on the petitioner. On January 18, 1985, plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2(a) complaining disobedience by the defendant of the status quo order which was registered as Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 5 of 1985. The temporary injunction order was. confirmed by the Additional Munsif on February 16, 1985. The plaintiff filed one more application for temporary injunction in mandatory form for dismentaling the constructions which had been made by the plaintiff affecting his rights. The plaintiff further moved an application on February 21, 1985 under Order 39, Rule 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Code regarding disobedience and that application was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 6 of 1985. After recording evidence of the parties, the Additional Munsif came to the conclusion that the defendant had constructed a room and a gallary after the status quo order was served on him. He also came to the conclusion that the window and the ventilator of the house of the plaintiff opening towards Bakhal had been closed by the construction. It was thus held that the defendant had disobeyed the temporary injunction order which had been issued against him on January 16, 1985 directing him to maintain status quo. For this disobedience the Additional Munsif ordered on June 1, 1985 that the defendant be detained in Civil prison for 2 months. Simultaneously on the application for temporary injunction in mandatory form, the Additional Munsif ordered that the entire balcony and the room and gallary to the extent of 6 feet in width may be dismantled by the defendant within 6 days at his expenses and in default thereof the same may be dismantled through agency of the court. The defendant filed appeal No. 36 of 1985 in the Court of the District Judge against the order of the Additional Munsif No. 1 Bikaner dated June 1, 1985. This appeal was decided by the Additional District Judge, Bikaner on January 8, 1987. The Additional District Judge agreed with the finding of the Additional Munsif Bikaner and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. The defendant filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 60 of 1987 against the order of the Additional District Judge. This revision was dismissed by me on February 3, 1987. The Additional District Judge agreed with the finding of the Additional Munsif Bikaner and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant. The defendant filed S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 60 of 1987 against the order of the Additional District Judge. This revision was dismissed by me on February 3, 1987. While dismissing the revision, following observations were made: "The Additional Munsif Bikaner correctly held that even the portion of the Bakhal which the plaintiff claimed to be in his possession could only be parallel and in front of his house and both the courts have concurrently found that the defendant has flagrantly and persistently violated the temporary injunction regarding maintenance of status quo issued on January 16, 1985. The petitioner has rightly been punished for such flagrant outrageous and persistent disobedience of the court's order." The revision was dismissed on February 3, 1987. Hie defendant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against this Court's order dated February 3, 1987 being S.L.P. No. 2269 of 1987 which was dismissed on March 6, 1987. 2. It appears that on August 29, 1987 and September 16, 1987 Madangopal and Lalchand, sons of the defendant, filed applications under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Munsif Lunkaransar (Camp Bikaner) stating therein that the disputed Bakhal was their pattashud land and neither the plaintiff nor the defendant had any title to it. They prayed that they may be impleaded as parties in the suit filed by Ramkishan. In the suit photostat copy of the sale-deed dated July 15 1987 was also produced in order to show that Poonamchand defendant-petitioner had sold his house to his sons Madangopal and Lalchand. The application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed by the Munsif on May 28,1988. 3. It then appears that on May 24, 1988 Poonamchand defendant filed an application before the Trial Court that he does not want to file any written statement to the plaint and the plaintiffs suit may be decreed under Order 8, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Munsif took notice of the temporary injunction in mandatory form which had been passed by him on January 1, 1985. The Munsif took notice of the temporary injunction in mandatory form which had been passed by him on January 1, 1985. Since the defendant did not choose to file the written statement, the plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction was decreed and it was further decreed that the order passed under Order 39, Rule 2(a) will form part of the decree. It was not disputed before me that Poonamchand has filed an appeal against this decree in so far as the Munsif has directed that the order passed by him under Order 39, Rule 2(a) will form part of the decree. In other words, an appeal has been filed by Poonamchand defendant against that part of the decree whereby demolition of the balcony, room and gallery to the extent of 6' wide had been ordered. It may be mentioned that on November 10, 1987 Poonamchand made an application under Order 39, Rule 2(a) read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code before the Munsif reciting the order passed by the Additional Munsif Bikaner on June, 1985 ordering his detention in civil prison for 2 months for the disobedience of the temporary injunction order, the dismissal of his appeal by the District Judge and his revision by this court and Special Leave to appeal petition by the Supreme Court. He stated that he was an old man of 60 years and tendered an unqualified apology for disobedience of the temporary injunction order. He also mentioned that fed up with the dispute relating to the property in question, he has sold the property. He prayed that the order passed for his detention in civil jail for 2 months may be set aside. This application was dismissed by the Munsif on 10th November, 1987. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 4. He prayed that the order passed for his detention in civil jail for 2 months may be set aside. This application was dismissed by the Munsif on 10th November, 1987. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. 4. The learned Counsel for defendant-petitioner urged that after dismissal of a Civil Revision Petition No. 60 of 1987 by this Court on February 3, 1987 and his petition for Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court on March 6, 1987 and after the filing of the present revision petition before this Court, he had made an application on May 24, 1988 before the Munsif stating that he does not want to file any written statement and that the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed and thereupon the Munsif decreed this suit of the plaintiff on May 28, 1988. It was pointed out that when the Second Stay Petition No. 113 of 1988 filed along with this revision came before this Court on May 21, 1988, the counsel for the defendant-petitioner had made a statement before this Court that the defendant was prepared to move to the Trial Court to pass a decree in the plaintiff's suit as prayed for by the plaintiff and in compliance with that statement, the defendant has got the suit of the plaintiff decreed. It was urged that when the suit has been decreed, the effect of temporary injunction has ceased to exist and in such circumstances, the defendant-petitioner should not be detained in civil prison in pursuance of the order of the Additional Munsif, Bikaner, dated June 1, 1985 which was upheld throughout. The learned Counsel relied upon the decisions in the case of Sheokumar Saxena v. Zilla Sahakari Vikas Sangh Gonda, AIR 1985 P. & H. 299 and Rachhpal Singh v. Guru Darshan Singh, AIR 1985 P. & H. 299 So far as Sheokumar Saxena's case (supra) is concerned, suffice it to state that in that case, the Trial Court had vacated the temporary injunction order on April 5, 1978. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court who had granted an interim injunction but ultimately, the appeal against the order vacating the temporary injunction was dismissed by the Appellate Court on August 31, 1978. The plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court who had granted an interim injunction but ultimately, the appeal against the order vacating the temporary injunction was dismissed by the Appellate Court on August 31, 1978. In such circumstances, it was held that after vacation of temporary injunction, it cannot be enforced or executed and hence punitive action for its breach cannot be taken. In the instant case, the temporary injunction order was never vacated. It continued throughout the pendency of the suit and was even made a part of the decree passed by the Trial Court. In Rachhpal Singh's case (supra) pending application under Order 39, Rule 2(a) for initiating the contempt proceeding, the plaintiff had withdrawn his suit. It would thus be clear that both these decisions have no application whatsoever to the present case. 5. It is clear that this Court has already decided the matter in Civil Revision No. 60 of 1987 and has dismissed the revision filed by the defendant against the order passed by the Trial Court for detaining him in civil prison for disobedience of the temporary injunction issued by the Additional Munsif No. 1 Bikaner and the defendant's petition for Special Leave against this Court's order also stands dismissed. There is no question of now making any change in the order for disobedience of temporary injunction passed by the Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 1 Bikaner on June I, 1985 for detention of the defendant in civil prison for 2 months. It has been held in the case of Eastern Trust Company v. Makenzis Mann & Co., AIR 1915 P.C. 106 (2) that an injunction although subsequently discharged because the plaintiff's case fails, must) be obeyed while it lasts. This decision of the Privy Council was followed in the case of Kishorechand Jagadev Ray v. Puri Municipality, AIR 1988 Orissa 284 It was held that application under Order 39, Rule 2(a) for taking action for disobedience of injunction order does not automatically lapse on the injunction order being subsequently challenged or the main case in which the said order passed having been disposed of. 6. It has also to be kept in mind that the defendant-petitioner has not even demolished the constructions made by him even after the decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit. The position taken by the defendant is precarious. 6. It has also to be kept in mind that the defendant-petitioner has not even demolished the constructions made by him even after the decree passed by the Trial Court in the suit. The position taken by the defendant is precarious. On the one hand, he states that he has transferred the property in favour of his sons. On the other hand, he has himself filed an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court in which the order for temporary injunction passed in mandatory form has been appealed against by him. There is no question of granting any clemency to the defendant-petitioner simply because he has tendered unqualified apology for his disobedience of temporary injunction of the court. The orders passed followed by Courts under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 are meant to be and not disobeyed. The disobedience still continues and persists not only at the instance of the defendant but also at the instance of his sons who have instituted another suit against the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 7. This revision petition has no merit in it and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the non-petitioner.Revision dismissed. *******