Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This civil revision petition has arisen out of order dated 28-1-98 passed by the Additional District Judge, Vth, Saran, Chapra, in Misc. Appeal No. 110 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the order dated 7-9-96 passed by the Munsif 1st Court, Chapra, in Misc. Case No. 6/93 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the C.P.C. has been reversed. 2. The petitioner and one Raghunath Singh filed Title Suit No, 61 of 1989 in the Court of 1st Munsif, Chapra, seeking a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from cutting away and removing the banian tree from the lands as described in Schedule-! of the plaint. Later on sole plaintiff died and his widow Manrajo Devi was substituted in his place, and Manrajo Devi died, the petitioner became the sole plaintiff. A temporary injunction was sought for from the side of the plaintiff in the suit. Defendants gave undertaking to that effect that during the pendency of the suit, the appellants would not remove the Mango trees or the remaining part of the banian tree from the suit land and on that undertaking and acceptance of assurance given by the defendants the injunction petition was disposed of granting restraint order against the defendants. During the course of pendency of the suit, a Pleader Commissioner was appointed for a local inspection regarding the situation, stage and feature over the suit land. 3. The Pleader Commissioner in his report said that the banian tree had already dried up long back and it is standing half-hearted over the land in a delapidated way and that during rainy season or tempest root and its upper part of the dried banian tree might be fallen down at any time. The report was given by the Pleader Commissioner 19-4-91. 4. A petition was filed by the plaintiffs in the suit on 29-3-93 under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A C.P.C. bringing allegation against the opposite parties that they had removed and cut away the dried up banian tree and as such they have violated the injunction order already granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner. 5. Both the parties adduced evidence. The plea of the opposite parties was that on the day when alleged removal was there, on 23-3-93 the opposite parties were not in the village rather they had gone to Bhagalpur for making Pairvi in another case. 6. 5. Both the parties adduced evidence. The plea of the opposite parties was that on the day when alleged removal was there, on 23-3-93 the opposite parties were not in the village rather they had gone to Bhagalpur for making Pairvi in another case. 6. In the evidence adduced by the petitioners side, it was supported that the removal was made of the dried up banian tree by the opposite parties. But there was no specific averment in the deposition of the witnesses as to when and by what such removal was made on 23-3-93. Moreover, the witnesses were also on inimical terms to the opposite parties. 7. In the evidence adduced by the opposite parties total denial was made. The matter of violation of injunction and punishment thereof is a matter between the Court and the part who had violated the order. The petitioner being the plaintiff had the only duty to inform the Court about such violation and the Court is to see and being satisfied regarding the violation that already made, the Munsif was satisfied on the evidence adduced from the plaintiffs sides although there was no specific allegation individually against the opposite party as to who and when removal was made as alleged on 23-3-93 when the plea of alibi was made from the side of the opposite parties. 8. In the appellate Court, the evidence was reconsidered and evaluated and the appellate Court found that the allegations could not be proved from the side of the petitioner. Although the violating injunction comes within the purview of the Code of Civil Procedure but the provision as of criminal touch and such allegation must be proved (sic) punishment against wrong-doer. Appellate Court on reappreciation found that the allegation would not be proved to the hilt. 9. On going through both the orders, it is found that the learned appellate Court was justified in reversing the order of the Court below. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any error of law or impropriety in the impugned order. 10. As such revision petition has got no force and the same is rejected but. without costs.