JUDGMENT This revision petition filed under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the common order dated 26.8.97 passed by the I Add. Distt. Judge, Mandsaur in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36/92 preferred by the present non-applicant and Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/92 preferred by the present applicants. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the non-applicant filed the civil suit in which order of temporary injunction was passed against the applicants with regard to status quo on the disputed land. The non-applicant filed an application under order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure complaining of disobedience of the aforesaid temporary injunction. The dispute related to the boundary of two adjacent plots. The applicants contested the application. The trial Court directed attachment of the property. This direction dissatisfied both the sides. The non-applicant filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36/92 in the Court of I Addl. District Judge, Mandsaur whereas the applicants filed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/92 in the same Court. By order dated 26.8.97, the lower appellate Court dismissed Civil Misc. Appeal No. 48/92, but allowed the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 36/92 and directed the applicants to be detained in civil prison for a term of three months. This common order is impugned in this civil revision. By order dated 12.9.97, the operation of this order was directed to remain stayed. The counsel for the applicants submitted that the suit is concluded. In the face of the adverse finding the applicants have demolished the wall and delivered the possession of the portion of the land held to be belonging to the non-applicant. He submitted that the construction of wall was made bona fide and now the non-applicant stands to gain the fruits of the decree. He has, thus, not chosen to appear and contest the revision. The counsel further submitted that there was no wilful disobedience and that the applicants have been wrongly held guilty of disobedience. He also submits that there was no justification to direct detention in civil prison despite the order of attachment made by the trial Court. In the alternative, he submits that reasonable compensation, if found necessary, may be awarded instead of directing detention in civil prison. He also submits that there was no justification to direct detention in civil prison despite the order of attachment made by the trial Court. In the alternative, he submits that reasonable compensation, if found necessary, may be awarded instead of directing detention in civil prison. Order 39 Rule 2A(2) provides as under :- "No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto". True it is that detention in civil prison robs the concerned individuals of their liberty. However, De-Tock Queville stated as under :- "Liberty cannot stand alone and must be paired with a companion virtue, i.e. liberty with law and liberty with common good." There is a finding about disobedience. The trial Court ordered attachment of the property for six months. The lower appellate Court instead directed detention in civil prison. The order, however, does not take into account the aforesaid subsequent events. In view of the subsequent events and peculiar facts and features of the case, I am satisfied that reasonable compensation should meet the ends of justice. In the circumstances, I find that the prayer made in this revision petition is irrecusable. Accordingly, I allow this revision petition, vacate the direction about detention in civil prison for a period of three months in regard to both applicants and instead award compensation of Rs. 500/- to the non-applicant. The applicants shall pay the sum of Rs. 250/- each to the non-applicant or deposit this amount in the executing Court for payment of the non-applicant within a period of fifteen days from today. If the amount is not paid or deposited as directed, the executing Court shall take appropriate steps for recovery from the applicants. This revision petition is accordingly allowed in part in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs.