JUDGMENT R.N. PRASAD, J. 1. This application in revision is directed against the order dated 26.5.1990 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 1987 affirming the order dated 19.11.1987 passed in Misc. Case No. 3 of 1984 whereby the petitioners were ordered to be detained in civil prison under order 39 rule 2(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, for disobedience of the order of status quo and residential house of the petitioners was attached. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-opposite party filed Title Suit No. 14 of 1984 on 30.1.1984 for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for premanent injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners for changing the configuration of the suit property by making any further construction. On the same day i.e. 30.1.1984 an order to maintain status quo was passed and directed for issuance of notice to the petitioners on 1.2.1984 the process server reported that petitioner no.1 refused to receive the notice. On the same day i.e. 1.2.1984 a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for local inspection of the suit property and to submit a report thereafter on 2.2.1984. The Pleader Commissioner held local inspection without any notice to the petitioners and reported that the construction was going on over the suit property. The opposite party thereafter filed an application stating therein that they should be punished for violation of the order of the court as they were continuing construction inspite of service of notice. On the said application a miscellaneous case was registered in which both the parties adduced evidence. The court held that the petitioners have violated the order of status quo and ordered them to be detained in civil prison for a period of two months and their residential house was attached. The appellate court also affirmed the order of the trial court by the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that no notice was served on petitioner no.2. The alleged service of notice on petitioner no. 1 has not been proved by the opposite party. The Pleader Commissioner was appointed in absence of the petitioners and he also made local inspection without any notice to the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge about the order passed in the title suit nor any notice was served to them. 4. The alleged service of notice on petitioner no. 1 has not been proved by the opposite party. The Pleader Commissioner was appointed in absence of the petitioners and he also made local inspection without any notice to the petitioners. The petitioners had no knowledge about the order passed in the title suit nor any notice was served to them. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party, however, submitted that notice on refusal was served on petitioner no.2 and hence the petitioners had knowledge about the order of the court. Though the Pleader Commissioner held local inspection without notice to the petitioners, there are other materials on the record to show that the petitioners violated the order of status quo passed by the court and thus the findings arrived at by the courts below do not require any interference by this court. 5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties this much is manifest that there is service on refusal against one of the petitioners. The Pleader Commissioner held local inspection without giving notice to the petitioners and on the basis of the report of the Pleader Commissioner, the court has come to a conclusion that the construction was made even after passing of the order to maintain status quo. In this regard it is obvious from the evidence of the witnesses of the petitioners that they consistently deposed that no notice was served on the petitioners. O.P.W. 5, Bagar Ram was witness on the notice of ad interim injunction. He deposed that on 11.2.1984 i.e. much after the alleged service of notice the court peon had gone to the house of the petitioners and he did not put L.T.I. on the notice. The L.T.I. on the notice was shown to the witnesses and he denied in specific words the L.T.I. on the notice and said that it is not his L.T.I. In such a situation it was the burden on the opposite party to get the L.T.I. examined by an expert to establish the fact but it appears that the opposite party has failed to do so. Mere oral evidence that he refused to receive the notice is not sufficient to establish the case that notice was served specifically in such a situation. Mere oral evidence that he refused to receive the notice is not sufficient to establish the case that notice was served specifically in such a situation. Furthermore no doubt the witnesses of the opposite party have stated that they violated the order of the court by making construction ever after passing the order of status quo but they have failed to prove that the petitioners have violated the order of the court even after service of notice. The report of the Pleader Commissioner says that the construction was going on but this report cannot be taken in evidence as no notice to the petitioners was given for inspection. Such a report cannot be of any use. In the case of Smt. Mandira Mukherjee vs. Sachindra Chandra Mukherjee (AIR 1962 Patna 211) the court has held that inspection by the Pleader Commissioner without giving notice to the parties is of no use. 6. It is true that if a person violates the order of the court after knowledge, he shall be guilty of violating the court's order but in the instant case the opposite party has failed to establish that notice was served on the petitioners. Thus on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, I am of the view that the order of the courts below cannot be sustained. 7. This application is, accordingly, allowed and the orders of the court below as well as the appellate court are hereby set aside but without costs.