Honble YADAV, J. – The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for specific performance along with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC for grant of temporary injunction. After hearing both the parties, the learned trial court refused to grant temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC. (2). Aggrieved against the refusal of temporary injunction, the present Misc.Appeal was filed before this Court and while entertaining the appeal on 9.3.94, the learned Single Judge of this Court ordered to issue notice on the stay application with following ad interim order, which reads thus : ``Meanwhile status quo in regard to the construction of the property as it existed today shall be maintained. (3). It is alleged by the plaintiff-petitioner that summons as well as show cause notices were duly filed for service upon the answering non-petitioners and other respondents and the same were sent by the office vide despatch No. 1960/1961dated 16.3.94. The summons and notices were served upon the answering non- petitioners and other respondents on 30.3.94. (4). It is further alleged that apart from the aforesaid service of summons and show cause notices on the answering non- petitioners and other respondents, lear- ned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner at Udaipur Shri Roshan Lal Jain submittedan application to the learned District Judge, Udaipur to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, so that, the latest position of construction may be ascertained. (5). In paragraph 4, it is alleged that copy of the application along with photostat copy of the ad interim order dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was furnished to Shri Amar Singh Solanki, learned counsel forthe respondents at Udaipur. But it is amusing to note that an Annexure of that application indicating communication of the ad interim stay order dated 9.3.94 to Shri Amar Singh Solanki has not been filed and marked as annexure with the affidavit. It is also alleged in the contempt petition that in abundant caution, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner also sent a telegram Annx.1 to the contempt pe-tition to the non-petitioners which must have been received in due time. It is also alleged that ad interim stay order was published in the daily Newspapers, copies whereof are attached as Annx. 2 and 3. (6). It is also alleged that ad interim stay order was published in the daily Newspapers, copies whereof are attached as Annx. 2 and 3. (6). On the basis of aforesaid averments, it is alleged that non-petitioners intentionally and wilfully disobeyed the order passed by the learned Single Judgeof this Court on 9.3.94. (7). The non-petitioners, after service of contempt notices upon them, filed a joint reply, denying communication and knowledge of ad interim injunction order dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The averments made in the contempt petition were emphatically denied by the non-petitioners. It is ave-rred by them in paragraph 9 of their reply that plaintiff- petitioner did not make reference about the ad interim order dated 9.3.94 passed by this Court in his application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner moved before the learned District Judge, Udaipur. It is also averred that from the aforesaid concealment, it is crystal clear that the plaintiff-petitioner was making concerted efforts to avoid com-munication to the non- petitioners about the ad interim injunction passed by this Court on 9.3.94. The non-petitioners had not disobyed the order dated 9.3.94 after getting its knowledge. (8). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contempt petition supported with an affidavit and counter affidavit filed by the answeringnon-petitioners. (9). From the close scrutiny of the averments made in the contempt petition, it is revealed that nowhere it is mentioned that on which date ad interim injunction order dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court was communicated to the answering-non-petitioners and after the knowledge of the said orderwhat further construction they have raised, leading to change of status quo existed on the date of order. To my mind, without disclosing a specific date about knowledge of order dated 9.3.94 to the non-petitioners and in absence of specific averments about construction raised by them which did not exist on the date of order, it is not possible for this Court to hold them guilty for deliberate and wilfull disobedience of the order dated 9.3.94. (10). It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff- petitioners did not muster courage to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by non-petitioners, controverting the averments made in the counter-affidavit. (10). It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff- petitioners did not muster courage to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by non-petitioners, controverting the averments made in the counter-affidavit. Ordinarily, if the contents of the counter affidavits are not denied or controverted by plaintiff-petitioners then the contents of counter-affidavits are to be believed by the Courts in the light of other material circumstances available on records. In the present case, I am satisfied that the plaintiff-petitioner miserably failed to establish that irrespectiveof knowledge of ad interim injunction order dated 9.3.94, the non-petitioners had wilfully and deliberately disobeyed or committed breach of order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 9.3.94. (11). I am also of the view that for punishing the non- petitioners-contemners either under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India or under Section 10 of the Contemptof Courts Act, 1971 or under O. 39 r. 2A, CPC, wilfull and deliberate disobedience must be proved beyond all shadow of doubt. Since these proceedings have penal consequences, therefore, knowledge of ad interim order dated 9.3.94 upon non-petitioners cannot be presumed on the basis of telegram or on publication of ad interim ex parte injunction order in a daily newspaper, having no circulation in theregion or, even if such daily newspaper may have circulation in the region even then looking into mass illiteracy, knowledge from publication in news paper cannot be presumed. Knowledge about ad interim order cannot be presumed on the basis of bald allegation about its communication to the counsel for non-petitioners. It is well to remember that substituted service or service of notice upon the counsel ofa party can be presumed to be sufficient by courts in those proceedings which have civil consequences but no such presumption can be raised in those proceedings which have penal consequences. (12). Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner Mr. B.M. Bhojak urged before me that the present case deserves further enquiry about communication and know-ledge of the ad interim injunction dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court upon the non-petitioners through learned District Judge, Udaipur. (12). Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner Mr. B.M. Bhojak urged before me that the present case deserves further enquiry about communication and know-ledge of the ad interim injunction dated 9.3.94 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court upon the non-petitioners through learned District Judge, Udaipur. Suffice it to say in this regard that after expiry of three and half years it would be too late to undertake such futile exercise, giving opportunity to the parties to create or tailor evidence to prove or disprove what further construction the non-petitionershave raised, leading to change of status quo which exised on the date of order dated 9.3.94 or did not exist on the date of aforesaid order. (13). No other points except the points discussed above have been argued before me. (14). As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present contempt petition,being hopelessly devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed, with costs assessed to Rs. 2,000/-. (15). After dictation of the order, learned Members of the Bar Present in the Court make a request to mark the order ``Reportable. Request is allowed and the order is made ``Reportable.