Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr. K. Elango, learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. T.M. Hariharan, learned counsel for the first respondent. The CRP has been filed by the first respondent herein against the order passed in an un-numbered I.A. in O.S. No. 528 of 1992 dismissing his application filed under Order 39 Rule 2(4) CPC., i.e., for violation of the order of injunction granted by the District Munsif Court of Thenkasi. The said injunction was granted in I.A. No. 1272/92. According to the first respondent, the petitioners who are employees under the Govt. are aware of the injunction order and therefore, they are to be proceeded against for the disobedience of the order. The said application was however dismissed by the District Munsif. Aggrieved by the said order, the first respondent preferred CMA. No. 13/94 impleading the petitioners 1 to 3 in their personal capacity though they are officers of the Government discharging their official functions. The CMA was allowed and remanded back to the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for fresh disposal. Aggrieved by the said order of remittal, the petitioners have filed the present revision. 2. Mr. Elango, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the revision petitioners contended that the petitioners being third parties to the suit, they cannot be impleaded as parties to the Contempt Application. I am unable to countenance the said contention. It is settled law that even a stranger to the order can be held guilty of the contempt and also can be proceeded against in the contempt of court proceedings. Therefore, this contention fails. However, it is open to the petitioners to appear before the lower Court and file a counter and contest the matter on merits and in accordance with law. It is open to them to file a counter affidavit by raising the contention which had been raised in this revision Learned Government Advocate also submits that no notice has been served on the petitioners in the injunction petition and that they are not aware of the passing of the injunction order passed by the lower court. It is open to them to raise that plea and to establish such a contention before the court below, in a manner known to law. 3. It is open to them to raise that plea and to establish such a contention before the court below, in a manner known to law. 3. In the result, the CRP is disposed of accordingly and the Court below shall take up the said I.A. on its file and dispose of the same within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order by either of the parties herein. There will be no order as to costs in this revision. Consequently CMP. No. 1262/97 is dismissed.