HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner Mr. S. Harish Kumar and Smt. Hymavathi for respondent. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition arises from the order dated 4. 7. 1998 whereby the Trial Court has ordered that the consideration and decision of the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A), CPC shall be decided along with the merits of the case i. e. I. A. 5 and 8 will be considered along with the merits of the case i. e. , the suit. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case in the nut-shell are that, in the suit for specific performance of contract to execute the agreement of lease and to enforce the agreement of contract of lease, the plaintiff has moved an application under Order 39 seeking injunction directing the deferfdant not to alienate the suit property in any manner. The Court granted the injunction order. Thereafter, according to the plaintiff, defendant committed breach of injunction order by alienating the property to some third person and the plaintiff moved the application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) of the Code seeking action for breach of injunction order. As pointed out by the learned Counsel as well, to prove his contention the plaintiff has appeared in witness-box and has examined the witness and produced the evidence and the defendant has also produced his evidence consisting of oral witness and four documents. The Court observes that,"1 have perused the oral and documentary evidence on both the sides. "thereafter, it passes the order,"considering the age of the suit and stage of the case, if these two applications are considered along with the merits of the case that will meet the ends of justice, as the applications leads to multiplicity of proceedings. " so, it passed the order that those applications will be considered along with the mertis of the case. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the scope of suit is a distinct matter while breach of injunction order and proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) stands on a different footing. The two cases have to be considered separately. He contended that so far as merits of the suit are concerned, if the plaintiff proves his claim, suit has to be decreed. The two cases have to be considered separately. He contended that so far as merits of the suit are concerned, if the plaintiff proves his claim, suit has to be decreed. If the plaintiff, according to the Trial Court fails to establish his case, suit may be dismissed. But, decreeing of suit will not affect on the question of breach if any committed by the defendant-respondent. It is a separate matter and the Court had to consider whether the breach of injunction order had been committed by the respondent and after considering the evidence, even the Court below can postpone it to decide along with the suit. The learned Counsel contended that court below had acted illegally when postponing the decision when it says, "i have perused the oral and documentary evidence of the parties on both sides", then it is the duty of the court to decide the matter in one way or other. Learned Counsel contended that postponment of decision or rejection of application simply on the ground that on merits the suit has been filed to prove breach of order of the Court, that may give encouragement to the litigants to commit breach of the order. In such circumstances, it was the duty of the Court to decide the application under Order Rule 39 2 (A ). In support of his application, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Gyan Chand Jain and Ors. v. XIIIth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Agra and ors. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Smt. Hymavathy submitted that the order may not amount to be a case decided. She submitted that for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115. the first ingredient that has to be established is that the order amounts to a case decided. She with all fairness submitted that it might be a case where applicant can move the court under Article 227 for exercise of powers of superintendence and if the Court would have thought of any jurisdictional error, it could have rectified it. But, revisional jurisdictional power cannot be asked to be exercised. She further submitted really revision petitioner is not going to suffer simply because of decision on application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) is postponed. It will be decided, any way. But, revisional jurisdictional power cannot be asked to be exercised. She further submitted really revision petitioner is not going to suffer simply because of decision on application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) is postponed. It will be decided, any way. ( 6 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Ordinarily postponement of decision of a case may not amount to a case decided andthat may be taken to be a routine order that after evidence, hearing is postponed for some other day or adjourned for some other date. But the question is when the Court says, "i have perused the oral and documentary evidence on both sides", and after considering it and perusing, it says that it will not decide the matter in this juncture, it will decide on the later stage, 1 am very doubtful that it is simply an interlocutary order. It tantamourits to really avoiding the decision. No doubt, 1 do not want to express any final opinion, whether such an order or order at such a nature can be said to be pure and simple order for the progress of the case. Any how, it may be said that order does not amount to a case decided, but the power of superintendence and supervision vests in the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution which is vested in the Court at every juncture to deal with the cases to give suitable direction to the Sub-ordinate Court. That power under Article 227 is not curtailed by anything under Article 227. Order 39 Rule 2 (A) reads as under:-"rule 2a, Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction. (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) 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. "the purport of Rule 2a of Order 39 is to see that the dignity of Court is not violated. Orders given by the Court are to be followed and they are meant to be followed and if anybody tries to take law into his own hands and to act in breach of the order intentionally and purposefully knowing the order full well, he has to be desuaded by talking action under Order 39 Rule 2. Majesty of law is to be maintained and if any person commits breach of majesty of law, definitely he has to be dealt with severe hands. The purpose of Order 39 Rule 2a is to prevent breach of the orders of the Court and disobedience of the orders of the Court. This has got nothing to do with final decision of the case. Final decision of the case may stand on a separate footing. But, when Court has ordered parties to maintain status-quo and directed the parties not to alienate the suit property in any manner, if such a case is made out and established, the duty of the Court of law is to see that said breach is punished and is not repeated. So, finally what is the decision of the suit is a different matter, but Court has to consider the suit separately and the application alleging that the defendant had committed breach of the injunction order that has to be decided on the basis of the evidence led in under Order 39 Rule 2a, application. These two have to be taken to be two distinct proceedings. No doubt, the application under Order 39 Rule 2a is made in a suit to the effect that party restrained has committed breach of the order, but that is a separate and distinct case. It has nothing to do with the merit of the suit to be finally decided. In support of my observations and view as mentioned above 1 may refer to the following obervations of Hon'ble mr. It has nothing to do with the merit of the suit to be finally decided. In support of my observations and view as mentioned above 1 may refer to the following obervations of Hon'ble mr. Justice G. P. Mathur of Allahabad High court in the case of Gyan Chand Jain and Ors. v. XIIIth Additional District and Sessions judge, Agra and Ors. (supra ). "in my opinion, the mere fact that an order was passed to hear the Misc. cases along with the main suit would not mean that the Misc. Cases should be decided on the basis of the evidence which had been recorded in the main suit and by the same order. A proceeding under order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC initiated on the ground of disobedience or breach of injunction order, is in the nature of a criminal proceeding as the person against whom such proceeding is initiated is liable to be detained in prison if it is found that he had committed breach of injunction order. Since a punishment is imposed and a person is sent to jail, the principle on which these proceedings are decided are entirely different. Here the principle of criminal law will apply and the plaintiff will have to establish beyond any shadow of doubt that the defendants had committed disobedience or breach of the injunction order even though he had full knowledge of the same. The burden of proving its case in such cases lies entirely on the plaintiff. The principle on which a civil suit is decided are different as here decision on the issues arising out of pleadings is taken on the basis of preponderance of evidence. " ( 7 ) IT this view of the matter, the order of the Court below that I. A. 5 and 8 will be considered along with the merits of the suit, in my opinion, appears to be illegal and based on misconception of law of two cases, namely, the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2a and the socpe of the suit. The order, as such. appears to be one which can be said to be illegal and based on Court below's failure to appreciate the distinction in the nature of the two proceedings means suit and application under Order 39 Rule 2a. The order, as such. appears to be one which can be said to be illegal and based on Court below's failure to appreciate the distinction in the nature of the two proceedings means suit and application under Order 39 Rule 2a. Therefore, the view the two applications which the Court below has said that it would consider them along with the mertis of the suit is erroneous and a result of really refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested to decide the applications. The two applications have to be decided distinctly on the basis of evidence led in support of those applications or in relation to those applications by respective parties. But the suit claim in the principal suit will have to be decided on the basis of the evidence that is lead or would be lead in the suit by the parties. In my opinion this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise its powers under Article 227 of the constitution. Even if application has been made under Section 115, powers under Article 227 vests in the Court and can be exercised in the interest of administration of justice and maintaining the faith in just and proper manner. ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, exercising my powers under Article 227, I quash the order of the learned Civil Judge. Learned Civil Judge is hereby directed to decide the two applications, separately, from the decision of the suit, on the basis of evidence led on those applications and decision of suit on merits will be done on the basis of evidence led in support of the claim and two have not to be confused because finally if suit is dismissed and breach is proved, action may have to be taken for violating the dignity of the Court and judicial system. By making this clear and having set aside the order, I direct the Court below to consider the two cases separately. No doubt. Court below is free to decide the case on any future date. Revision allowed. --- *** --- .