JUDGMENT This application under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the applicant, alleging breach of the order passed by this Court on 18.10.1989 by the non-applicants. The applicant filed a civil suit in the trial Court for dec1aration and permanent injunction against the State through non-applicant" and also through Collector Guna. Though initially temporary injunction was refused to the applicant, on the, finding that he was not in possession, but subsequently, after the evidence, the suit of the applicant was decreed by the trial Court. As against the decree an appeal was filed by the State and the learned appellate Court allowed the appeal and found that the applicant was neither the title-holder nor the person in possession of the land in dispute. A" against the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the applicant filed a Second Appeal No. 191/89, which is still pending consideration and in that appeal this Court passed an order on 18.10.1989, maintaining status quo in the matter of possession over the suit land and also a direction that the respondents shall not dispossess the plaintiff-applicant. The applicant, by way of this application, alleges that the two non-applicants are taking steps to dispossess the applicant from the disputed land. The non-applicants have been impleaded as a party by their posts and not as a person. The allegations made by the applicant have been denied by the non-applicants. Breach of the order, which has been made punishable under Rule 2-A of section 39 CPC is by the "person", as the Rule proceeds to say "the person guilty of such disobedience or breach", whereas in the application, persons have not been made the non-applicants, but they have been described by the posts that one may hold. Secondly, in the reply, filed by the non-applicants, they· have submitted that the land in dispute is a Parade Ground of DRP lines and has never been in possession of the applicant. In fact, this question is to be decided only in the Second Appeal, but so far as the question of status quo of the land in dispute or the disturbance of possession is concerned, the applicant has not produced any document to show that the non-applicants have disturbed the status, quo or possession of the applicant. In fact, non-applicants allege that they are in. In fact, non-applicants allege that they are in. possession, but since the applicant has not been able to make out a case of any be each of the order passed by this Court, or of change of the status quo of the land in dispute, with regard to the possession, the application deserves dismissal on both counts; firstly, that the non-applicants have not been impleaded as persons; and secondly, that no case for breach of order passed by this Court is made out. The application is, therefore, dismissed.