JUDGMENT : D.P. Mohapatra, J. - The core question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether an order of injunction passed against the State Government is binding against a person who is not a party in the suit and if so, in what Circumstances. 2. The Appellant Kumarbar Sahoo assails the order passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhubaneswar on 1-5-1989 in Misc. Case No. 31 of 1988 rejecting his application under Order 39, Rule 2A read with Section 151, CPC to take appropriate action against the Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar for violating the order of injunction. The Appellant filed Title Suit No. 162 of 1986 against the Respondents, that is, the State of Orissa, represented through its Secretary, General Administration Department, the Collector, Puri and the Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar for declaration of his right, title, interest and possession over the suit land. In the said suit the Appellant filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 to restrain the Respondents not to disturb his peaceful possession over the suit land. The trial Court granted ad interim injunction by the order dated 30-8-1986 and the said order was made absolute on 21-8-1987. The Appellant alleged that in spite of the order of injunction the Estate Officer, Bhubaneswar filed the case bearing No. O.P.P. No. 70 of 1986 under the Orissa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act (for short 'the O.P.P. Act') for his eviction. On receiving notice in the said case the Petitioner filed the application under Order 39, Rule 2A to take action against him for violation of the order of injunction. 3. The opposite parties resisted the application on the ground, inter alia, that since the Estate Officer was neither a party in the suit nor in the Misc. Case registered on the injunction petition the order of injunction was not binding against him and therefore the application under Order 39, Rule 2A to take action against him for the alleged violation of the injunction order was not maintainable. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the above objection raised on behalf of the Respondents and dismissed the Appellant's application by the impugned order. It may be noted here that after filing the application under Order 39, Rule 2A the Appellant filed two other applications, one to direct the Director of Estates in the General Administration Department and the Addl. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the above objection raised on behalf of the Respondents and dismissed the Appellant's application by the impugned order. It may be noted here that after filing the application under Order 39, Rule 2A the Appellant filed two other applications, one to direct the Director of Estates in the General Administration Department and the Addl. Land Officer in the said Department not to proceed with O.P.P. Case No. 70 of 1986 and another application to implead the Estate Officer as a party in the suit. It was stated before me that these applications, have not been disposed of yet. 5. Shri J.M. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant strenuously contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case since the State of Orissa represented through the Secretary in the General Administration Department was a party in the proceeding in which the order of injunction was passed the Court below ought to have held that the said order of injunction was binding against the Estate Officer who is a subordinate Officer ill the Department. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kamini Debi v. Purna Chandra Nath, 63 (1987) C.L.T. 326. The learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the opposite parties supported the impugned order. 6. Order 39, Rule 2A, CPC provides, inter alia, that in the case of disobedience of any order of injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted, the Court granting the injunction 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 unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. Considering the language of the provision and the matter dealt with in it, it is clear that the provision has a punitive part. It must therefore be strictly construed and firmly established. The principle is well settled that an injunction is an equitable relief and equity acts in personam. Therefore an injunction is a personal matter. The ordinary rule is that it can only be disobeyed in contempt by persons named in the writ. It must therefore be strictly construed and firmly established. The principle is well settled that an injunction is an equitable relief and equity acts in personam. Therefore an injunction is a personal matter. The ordinary rule is that it can only be disobeyed in contempt by persons named in the writ. Persons who were not Defendants in the suit in which injunction was granted nor were named in the order cannot be proceeded against in contempt for disobeying the injunction (See Maharaja Pratap Udai Nath Shahi Deo Vs. Sara Lal Durga Prasad Nath Shahi Deo and Others. and R. Narapa Reddy Vs. Jagarlamudi Chandramouli and Others, A well recognised exception to this general rule is the case where it is alleged and proved that the person who violated the order of injunction was an agent or servant or workman of the person against whom the order of injunction was passed. In such a case the person violating the order can be proceeded against for his act of abetting the violation of injunction. The Supreme Court in the case of the The State of Bihar Vs. Rani Sonabati Kumari observed that the expression "person" has under Order 39, Rule 2(3) been employed merely compendiously to designate everyone in the group Defendant his agents, servants and workmen" and not for excluding any Defendant against whom the order of injunction has primarily been passed. A similar principle was laid down by the Patna High Court in the case of Ram Prasad Singh Vs. Subodh Prasad Singh and Others. This Court in the case of Kamini Debi (supra) while laying down the aforesaid principle has sounded a word of caution by observing as follows: In my view, a person not a party to the suit is also liable to be proceeded against for his act of abetting the order of injunction, but the difficulty for the Appellant is that the said Lokanath Nath has not been made a party to the proceeding. A proceeding under Rule 2A of Order 39 being quasi criminal in nature, in order to punish any person, if at all, it is essential that he should be impleaded as a party. In any case, under the general principle. the Defendants' liability for breach of the order of restraint through their agents or servants is obvious. A proceeding under Rule 2A of Order 39 being quasi criminal in nature, in order to punish any person, if at all, it is essential that he should be impleaded as a party. In any case, under the general principle. the Defendants' liability for breach of the order of restraint through their agents or servants is obvious. But in order to bring home the charge, it was essential for the Appellant to lead sufficient and unimpeachable evidence before the trial Court that the said Lokanath Nath was a person who though was the father of Defendants 1 and 2, was acting as their agent. Mere relationship in the absence of any legal evidence in a quasi-criminal proceeding, in my view, would not be sufficient to fasten the liability for the punishment under Rule 2A of Order 39 of the Code. Therefore whether a person not impleaded in the suit and not named in the injunction order can be proceeded against under Order 39, Rule 2A for violation of the order depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. Before answering the question in the affirmative the Court must be satisfied on the materials placed before him that the person concerned had knowledge of the order of injunction, that he was acting as the agent of the person against whom the order of in junction was in force and that his action lacked bonafide. 8. Coming to the facts of the present case, admittedly the Estate Officer was neither a Defendant in the suit nor a party in the injunction petition. It is clear from the discussions in the impugned order that no attempt was made by the Petitioner to establish that the Estate Officer had knowledge about the order of injunction or that he was acting as agent or at the behest of the parties against whom the order of injunction was passed while filing a case under the O.P.P. Act. There is also no controversy that initiating the proceeding against the Appellant under the O.P.P. Act the Estate Officer was discharging a statutory duty/ function. In such a situation it cannot be reasonably said that he was acting as an agent of the State Government. A further question would arise whether by merely initiating proceeding under the O.P.P. Act the order of injunction could be said to have been violated. In such a situation it cannot be reasonably said that he was acting as an agent of the State Government. A further question would arise whether by merely initiating proceeding under the O.P.P. Act the order of injunction could be said to have been violated. These matters, as noticed earlier, were to be established by producing reliable and acceptable materials. The learned Counsel for the Appellant could not bring to my notice any such materials. In these circumstances no exception can be taken to the order of the learned Subordinate Judge rejecting the Appellant's application under Order 39, Rule 2A, Code of Civil Procedure. 9. The appeal being thus devoid of merit is dismissed. There will however, be no order for cost. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed