JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - Being aggrieved by the order of the First Add/. District judge, Cuttack in appeal directing the trial Court to take appropriate action against her for violating the order of injunction the Petitioner filed this application u/s 115, Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the said order. The factual back-drop of the case leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus: 2. The parties are in occupation of portions of the building situated in Cuttack town, the opp. Parties as owners of the property and the Petitioner as the tenant in respect of a portion of it. The Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 68 of 1986 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge (I), Cuttack against the Opp. Parties and some others with the prayers, inter alia, to declare that the Defendants have no authority under law to cause any damage to the suit premises in her occupation so as to render the same unfit and unsuitable for human habitation, for mandatory injunction commanding the Defendants to cause and complete the repair work within the time to be fixed by the Court and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from causing any further damage to the suit house or to come over and interfere with peaceful enjoyment and occupation of the same by the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever. In the said suit on the application filed by the Petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC (Misc. Case No. 79 of 1986) the leaned Subordinate Judge by the order dated 2-8-1986 restrained the opposite parties from evicting the Petitioner by force and directed the Petitioner to effect repair of the roof of the house which is in her occupation at her cost without making any new construction, alteration or remodelling with the further condition that the repair should be made in such manner that the nature of the suit house is not changed or affected. Thereafter, the opposite parties, Defendants 2 and 5 in the suit filed an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (Misc. Thereafter, the opposite parties, Defendants 2 and 5 in the suit filed an application under order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (Misc. Case No. 336 of 1986) against the Petitioner for an order of mandatory injunction directing the Petitioner to remove the obstructions from the common corridor and common passage shown in the map attached to the application within the time to be fixed by the Court failing which the same may be removed through the process of Court and further to restrain the Petitioner not to raise any new construction, addition or alteration to the premises in question or to cause any obstruction to the right of passage and manner of use of the portion of the premises which is in Khan possession of the opposite parties. The learned Subordinate Judge by the order dated 26-3-1987 allowed the prayer of the opposite parties for temporary injunction and directed the Petitioner to remove the grill gate and to open the passage as stated in, the petition within fifteen days from the date of the order. The Petitioner filed Misc. Appeal No. 49 of 1987 in the Court of the District Judge, Cuttack assailing the said order of temporary injunction. The learned District Judge by judgment dated 13-10-1987 dismissed the appeal but modified the order of injunction to the effect that the Petitioner should make over a duplicate key of the lock of the grill gate to her landlords, the opposite parties for having free and uninterrupted access to the godown through the passage even during night time. From the discussions in the impugned order it appears that the appellate Court did not approve of the direction of the trial Court that the grin gate should be removed and also negatived the Petitioner's claim of exclusive right to use the passage. The appellate Court therefore confirmed the order of injunction with the aforementioned modification. 3. Subsequently the opposite parties filed the application on 4-5-1987 under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC before the learned Subordinate judge, Cuttack (Misc. Case No. 204/87) alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner had not removed the grill gate and had not opened the passage as directed by the Court even though fifteen days had long expired and had therefore deliberately violated the order of injunction for which she is liable to be punished. Case No. 204/87) alleging, inter alia, that the Petitioner had not removed the grill gate and had not opened the passage as directed by the Court even though fifteen days had long expired and had therefore deliberately violated the order of injunction for which she is liable to be punished. In the objection to the said application the Petitioner took the stand that the order of injunction passed by the trial Court had been modified by the appellate Court to the extent that only a duplicate key of the lock to the grill gate was to be given to the opp. Parties which was duly complied with. A point was also taken in the objection that the direction given in the order had not been served on the Petitioner and therefore it could not be said that the time had run out. This point was however not seriously pressed at the hearing of the case since in the facts and circumstances available from records there can be little scope for doubt that the Petitioner had knowledge of the order of injunction. The opposite party No. 2 Raj Kishore Sahu and the Petitioner Bijay laxmi Sahoo were examined as witnesses in support of their respective cases The learned Subordinate judge by order dated 17-2-1989 dismissed the petition under Order 39, Rule 2-A holding, inter alia, that the Petitioner had not consciously or deliberately violated the order of injunction and in view of the order passed by the appellate Court, she was under a wrong impression that she was required only to hand over a duplicate key of the lock to the grill gate. The Court was therefore of the view that there was no sufficient reason for taking action under Order 39, Rule 2-A against the Petitioner. On appeal by the opposite parties (Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 1989) the first Add!. Dist. Judge, Cuttack by the judgment dated 30-11-1989 set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and sent back the record to the trial Court for taking appropriate action against the violating party as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. This order is under challenge in the present proceeding. 4. Dist. Judge, Cuttack by the judgment dated 30-11-1989 set aside the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and sent back the record to the trial Court for taking appropriate action against the violating party as it deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. This order is under challenge in the present proceeding. 4. Shri N.C. Pati appearing for the Petitioner submitted that in view of the order of the learned District Judge modifying the order of injunction passed by the learned Subordinate judge to the effect that the Petitioner was to hand over a duplicate key of the Jock to the grill gate and there being no allegation that the said direction had not been complied with, the application filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A was without basis and therefore had been rightly rejected by the trial Court. It was the further submission of Shri Pati that the learned Addl. District Judge clearly erred in setting aside the order of dismissal passed by the learned Subordinate Judge without a finding that the Petitioner had deliberately and wilfully disobeyed the order of injunction. In this connection the learned, counsel submitted that construing the order of the appellate Court by which the order of injunction passed by the trial Court was modified, the Petitioner was under the bona fide impression that the only direction to be carried out by her was to hand over to the opposite parties a duplicate key of the lock to the grill gate. Shri N.C. Panigrahi appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand submitted that the order of injunction passed by the trial Court was in two parts; One to remove the grill gate put by the Petitioner and the other to remove obstruction to the passage. Though the learned District Judge modified the direction in the injunction order regarding removal of the grill gate and directed the Petitioner to hand over a duplicate key of the lock, the order direction in the injunction order was not disturbed and therefore the Petitioner was duty bound to carry out that part of the injunction order also. Having failed to do so she is liable to be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC and the learned Addl. District Judge rightly gave such direction in the impugned order. 5. Having failed to do so she is liable to be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC and the learned Addl. District Judge rightly gave such direction in the impugned order. 5. I have perused the records of the proceedings before the Courts below. In my view the contention raised by Shri (sic) has ample substance. From the application for injunction filed by the opposite parties (Misc. Case No. 336 of 1986) it appears that the opposite parties have not spelt cut clearly and specifically that there is certain obstruction to the passage other than and independent of the grill gate. Indeed in paragraph 4, it is averred that the opposite party (Petitioner in the revision petition) in the grab of effecting repair of the roof has illegally on 9th August, 1986 closed the common corridor and passage as shown in the map closing the entrance of the Petitioners (opposite parties in the revision petition) by brick construction and putting grill gate whereby the Petitioners (Opposite parties) have been prevented from approaching, their pucca godown room through the said common corridor as well as to go to the shop rooms for effecting repairs which the opposite party (revision Petitioner) has no legal right to do. The order of injunction directed the Petitioner to remove the grill gate and to open the passage as stated by the opposite parties in the petition. The appellate Court, as noticed earlier, modified the order of injunction to the effect that the Petitioner should make over a duplicate key of the lock to the grill gate to her landlords for having free and uninterrupted access to the gadown through the passage even during night time. In paragraph 4 of the judgment the Court observed, inter alia, that a complete removal of the grill gate which has already been installed would neither be beneficial to the interest of the house owners in occupation of the godown nor to that of the Plaintiff-tenant, but then just for that the Plaintiff-Appellant cannot be allowed to exclusively use the passage to the detriment of the interest of the owners whose right over the passage has not been taken away with the creation of tenancy. From the foregoing discussions, it is clear that the plea of the Petitioner that she understood the resultant position to be that she was only to carry out the direction of the appellate Court to hand over a duplicate key of the lock to the grill gate to the opposite parties cannot be said to be without any basis or justification. Consequently, it follows that it cannot be said that the Petitioner wilfully violated the order of injunction. The learned Addl. Dist. Judge while passing the impugned order has also not recorded any finding to this effect. It is to be borne in mind that the jurisdiction vested under Order 39, Rule 2-A is not merely for punishing the party, it is primarily meant for enforcement of injunction order passed by the Court. This view gains support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the, case of The State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari, wherein the Supreme Court interprovisions under Order 39, Rule 2(3) (as it stood then) and Order 21, prating the Rule 32 observed as follows: ...Though undoubtedly proceedings under Order 39, Rule 2(3) CPC have a punitive aspect-as is evident from the contemner being liable to be ordered to be detained in civil prison, they are in substance designed to effect the enforcement of or to execute the order. This is clearly brought out by their identity with the procedure prescribed by the CPC for the execution of a decree for permanent injunction.... Following the above decision, the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sitaram Vs. Ganesh Das, held that the purpose of Order 39, Rule 2-A, CPC is to enforce the order of injunction; it is a provision which permits the Court to execute the injunction order, its provisions are similar to the provisions of Order 21 (Rule: 32) CPC which provide for the execution of a decree for injunction the mode of execution given in Order, 21, Rule 32 is the same as provided in Rule 2A of, Order 39. 6. In course of hearings of the ease before me it was urged by, Shri Patra that the Petitioner has removed the brick construction. In the meantime (other than the grill gate), and the pass has been cleared. 6. In course of hearings of the ease before me it was urged by, Shri Patra that the Petitioner has removed the brick construction. In the meantime (other than the grill gate), and the pass has been cleared. Since the position was disputed by Shri Panigrahi appearing for the opposite parties, I passed the order dated 6-3-1990 directing the Assistant Registrar (Administration) of this Court to visit the spot and submit a, report. From the report submitted by him it appears that the brick, structure which was alleged to be obstructing the passage has been, demolished. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the fact that both parties are of occupation of portions of the same premises. I am inclined to take the view that the matter should be dosed. 7. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 30-11-1989 of the First, Addl. Dist. Judge, Cuttack is set aside and the order dated 17-2-1989 of the First Addl. Subordinate Judge, Cuttack is confirmed. There will however be no order fur costs Petition allowed. Petition allowed. Final Result : Allowed