This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.10.85 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Misc. Appeal No.3 of 1984 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated 2.2.84 passed by the Munsiff, North Lakhimpur in Misc. Case No.33of 1980. 2. The opposite party as plaintiff filed a suit (TS No.41 of 1979) in the Court of Munsiff, North lakhimpur against the petitioner and 13 others for declaration of his right, title and interest and for recovery of possession and for permanent injunction. Along with the plaint, he also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering into the land. Ex-parte temporary injunction was granted by the Munsiff. The petitioner-first defendant appeared in the suit and filed his objection. After hearing the parties, the order of injunction granted earlier was vacated by the Munsiff by his order dated 13.10.79. Before the disposal of the injunction petition the opposite party filed another application under Order 39 Rule 2 A alleging that the petitioner violated that order of injunction granted on 7.2. 80 and prayed for passing necessary order. 3. The petitioner filed objection against the said petition. The opposite party, thereafter, examined four witnesses. The Munsiff found the petitioner guilty of disobeying the injunction Older and therefore, he passed an order of detention of the petitioner in civil prison for 15 days. After the said order, the opposite party filed a petition for putting the petitioner in civil prison. The petitioner also filed yet another application for rejecting the prayer of the opposite party. The Munsiff by his order dated 2.2.84 ordered to issue a Writ for civil imprisonment for 15 days as ordered earlier, fixing 16.2.84 for return of the Writ. 4. The petitioner filed an appeal (Misc Appeal No. 3 of 1984) in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, North Lakhimpur. The Assistant District Judge also by his order dated 14.10.85 dismissed the appeal affirming the order dated 29.9.82 passed by the Munsiff. Hence this affirming. 5. I have heard both sides. Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Assistant District Judge was without jurisdiction. The Assistant District Judge also by his order dated 14.10.85 dismissed the appeal affirming the order dated 29.9.82 passed by the Munsiff. Hence this affirming. 5. I have heard both sides. Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Assistant District Judge was without jurisdiction. The Assistant District Judge acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercising his jurisdiction by rejecting the appeal under misconception of law. 6. Mr. BP Kataky, learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, supports the impugned order passed by the Assistant District Judge. I have perused the impugned order. The Assistant District Judge while dismissing the appeal observed thus :- "...the order dated 29.9.82 is being attacked which is uncalled for. The, appeal is against one order and a different order is assailed in the body of the memorandum of appeal. The order dated 2.2.84 has no irregularity or illegality. It was to give effect to the order dated 29.9.82, Which reached finally. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. 7. The Munsiff by his order dated 29.9.82 has found that the opposity party i.e. the petitioner disobeyed the injunction order passed by his predecessor TS No.41 of 1979 and therefore he is guilty under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for violation of the order passed by the Court. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and violation of the injunction order, he ordered for detention of the petitioner in civil prison for 15 days. 8. This order was passed under Order 39 Rule 2A and accordingly this was a final order. Under Order 43 Rule 1 sub-rule (r) of the CPC, an appeal lies against the such order. No step was taken by the petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of the said order. Therefore, the said order dated 29.9.82 passed by the Munsiff became final. In pursuance of the order dated 29.9.82, the opposite party took steps for putting the petitioner in civil prison, and for that purpose he deposited Rs,250/-.The order dated 2.3.84 issuing a Writ for civil imprisonment of the petitioner for 15 days is only a follow up order. No. appeal lies against the said order. Accordingly the Assistant District Judge rejected the appeal on that ground. 9. Mr. No. appeal lies against the said order. Accordingly the Assistant District Judge rejected the appeal on that ground. 9. Mr. Goswami learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Assistant District Judge was wrong in dismissing the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to challenge the order dated 2.2.84, holding that the said order was a follow up order. According to Mr. Goswami, the petitioner has a right to challenge the Writ of warrant at any stage, as such the impugned order is bad in law. 10. Mr. BP Kataky, on the other hand submits that the Assistant District Judge rightly dismissed the appeal in view of the fact that the main order was passed by the Court under Order 39 Rule 2A about two years before the order dated 2.2.84. Rule 2A has been newly inserted which corresponds to old sub-rule 3 of Rule 2. The objects of the amendment is to provide for the consequences of the breach of an injunction issued under Rule 1 which was earlier not covered. 11. The aim of the 1976 Amendment is to seek the .application of the provisions for breach which were earlier available under an injunction granted under Rule 2, sub-rule 3 and 4. There was some controversy as to whether under the old provision, a Court to which a suit is transferred can punish for disobedience of an injunction issued by the predecessor Court. The new Rule 2A provides that the transferee Court can also exercise that power. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Munsiff who passed the order on 29.9.82 did not pass the injunction order, which was violated, even though in view of the amendment, the present Munsiff had definitely right to invoke the power under Order 39 Rule 2A. 12. A party proceeded against disobedience of an order of injunction cannot be held to have wilfully disobeyed the order provided two conditions • are satisfied; viz; (i) that the order was ambiguous and reasonably capable of more than one interpretation and (ii) that the party being proceeded against in fact did not intend to disobey the order, but .conducted himself in accordance with his interpretation of the order. The question whether a party has understood the order in a particular manner and has conducted himself in accordance with such a construction is primarily one of fact, and where the materials before the Court do not support such a state of affairs, the Court cannot attribute an innocent intention based on presumptions. The fact of disobedience must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court almost like a criminal Court. Mere allegation is not enough, it must be established before the Court. The order passed by the Munsiff dated 29.9.82 does not on the face of it indicate the existence of such conditions, but the order passed by Muasiff was not challenged in an appropriate Court. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to look into the matter. The Assistant District fudge has rightly held that the order dated 29.9,82 having not been challenged, the appeal is not maintainable. I do not find anything wrong ia coming to such conclusion. Therefore, the present petition challenging the impugned order if dot susteinable in law. 13. There is no merit in the petition. Accordingly the petition is dissmissed. No costs.