Judgment Ashok Kumar Verma, J. 1. The appellants, who were the defendants 1st party in Title Suit No. 12 of 1991 have filed this Misc. Appeal against the ord*r dated 18-8-1994 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991 by the Additional District Judge, Madhepura whereby the learned Additional District Judge had ordered them to be detained in civil Imprisonment for three months under Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. According to the appellants, the plaintiffs had filed an injunction petition in the Title Suit, which was rejected by the learned Munsif by order dated 27-2-1991. Against the order of rejection of the prayer for injunction, the plaintiffs preferred Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 and during pendency of the Misc. Appeal, the appellants filed an application dated 13-5-1991 for granting status quo, which was heard on 20-5-1991 and the Advocate of the defendants-respondents, who are appellants in this appeal made an oral undertaking that during pendency of the Misc. Appeal without permission of the Court, no further construction will be made. On 30-5-1991, the plaintiffs appellants, who are respondents in this appeal filed an application in the Court of the learned Additional District Judge regarding violation of the order of that Court dated 20-5-1991 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 on which the Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991 was initiated and the impugned order was passed. According to the appellants, the lower Appellate Court has construed the order dated 20-5-1991 to be an order of status quo passed by the Court. The said undertaking given in the order-sheet dated 20-5-1991 is with regard to the construction only and not for the repair works. There was no order for status quo passed by the Court below. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1st party and according to them, the Court below had passed the impugned order after careful consideration of the evidence brought on record and held that the defendants-respondents had wilfully violated the undertaking given in the Court during pendency of the proceeding. The appellants constructed a new house in wilful disobedience of the order dated 20-5-1991 and the respondents moved a fresh application before the Court below for initiating fresh proceeding against the appellants for repeated violation of the Courts order dated 20-5-1991 and this gave rise to Misc. The appellants constructed a new house in wilful disobedience of the order dated 20-5-1991 and the respondents moved a fresh application before the Court below for initiating fresh proceeding against the appellants for repeated violation of the Courts order dated 20-5-1991 and this gave rise to Misc. Case No. 1of 1993, which is under inquiry. 4. It was submitted by the learned lawyer for the appellants that the order dated 20-5-1991 merely shows that it was only a submission made by the learned lawyer before the Court and the Court had not passed any order on the petition in view of that submission which fact is further clarified by the order dated 21-5-1991, which shows that a petition was filed by the appellants that in spite of the undertaking given by the opposite parties they were constructing a house on the disputed land and again he should be ordered not to do any work on the disputed land during pendency of the Misc. Appeal but on order was passed on that petition and on 30-5-1991 a petition was filed on behalf of the appellants of Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 in the Court below for disobedience of the order of the Court. The contention of the learned lawyer for the respondents was that the order dated 20-5-1991 passed in Misc. Appeal No.2 of 1991 by the Court below is a clear order and the appellants have repeatedly violated the said order and later on also, they had violated the order for which Misc. Case No.1 of 1993 had been filed which is under inquiry. It is relevant to mention here that this Misc. Appeal is not in respect of the Misc. Case No. 1 of 1993 and the present Misc. Appeal is against the impugned order dated 18-8-1994 passed in Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991. 5. It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the learned Additional District Judge has mentioned in the impugned order that he is of the opinion that they have flouted the order of the Court knowingly and intentionally for which they are liable for civil imprisonment. 6. In Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 in the Court below, a petition was filed to initiate proceeding for disobedience of the order dated 20-5-1991 of the Court against the respondents 1st party. 6. In Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 in the Court below, a petition was filed to initiate proceeding for disobedience of the order dated 20-5-1991 of the Court against the respondents 1st party. The order dated 20-5-1991 shows that a rejoinder to the petition of the appellants dated 13-5-1991 had been filed on behalf of the opposite parties and an oral undertaking was given by the Advocate of the opposite parties that no work will be done on the disputed land during pendency of the Misc. Appeal without the permission of the Court and on that date the learned Additional District Judge had also ordered the appellants to file correct address of opposite party No. 6 and notices. It is relevant to mention here that the opposite party No. 6 is also one of the respondents 1st party. In the order-sheet dated 21-5-1991 of the Misc. Appeal No.2 of 1991, it has been mentioned that an application was filed on behalf of the appellants that in spite of the undertaking given by the opposite parties, they were proceeding with the construction of the house on the disputed land and, therefore, they should again be ordered not to do any work on the disputed land till disposal of the Misc. Appeal but no order was passed on this petition. On 13-5-1991, a petition had been filed on behalf of the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 in the Court below to order the opposite parties to maintain status quo till the disposal of the Misc. Appeal. The order dated 20-5-1991 and 21-5-1991, passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 by the learned Additional District Judge do not show that the petition dated 13-5-1991 had been disposed of. The order dated 20-5-1991 only shows that an oral undertaking was given by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties that no work will be done on the disputed land till the disposal of the Misc. Appeal without the permission of the Court but the said petition filed on 13-5-1991 by the appellants to order the opposite parties to maintain status quo, had not been disposed of by the learned Addl. District Judge on 20-5-1991 on the basis of the aforesaid submission made by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties. The petition of Misc. Appeal without the permission of the Court but the said petition filed on 13-5-1991 by the appellants to order the opposite parties to maintain status quo, had not been disposed of by the learned Addl. District Judge on 20-5-1991 on the basis of the aforesaid submission made by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties. The petition of Misc. Case No. 1 of 1991 had been filed for disobedience of the order of the Court dated 20-5-1991 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991. 7. Admittedly, on 13-5-1991, a petition was filed in Misc. Appeal No. 2 of 1991 in the Court below on behalf of the appellants for order to the respondents to maintain status quo on the disputed land till the disposal of the Misc. Appeal and a rejoinder to this petition was filed on behalf of the respondents on 20-5-1991 and the learned lawyer for the opposite parties had given an oral undertaking that no work will be done on the disputed land till the disposal of the Misc. Appeal without the permission of the Court. It appears that no order in respect of the petition filed on behalf of the appellants to maintain status quo, was passed in view of the said oral undertaking by the learned Additional District Judge whether it was accepted or not. On 21-5-1991 also, a petition had been filed on behalf of the appellants to order the respondents not to do any work on the disputed land till the disposalof the Misc. Appeal but no order was passed on this petition. It appears from perusal of the record that the learned Additional District Judge had not passed order on 20-5-1991 and 21-5-1991 on the petition filed by the appellants dated 13-5-1991 regarding maintaining status quo on the disputed land till the disposal of the Misc. Appeal and on the oral undertaking given by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties. 8. It appears from perusal of the record that the learned Additional District Judge had not passed order on 20-5-1991 and 21-5-1991 on the petition filed by the appellants dated 13-5-1991 regarding maintaining status quo on the disputed land till the disposal of the Misc. Appeal and on the oral undertaking given by the learned lawyer for the opposite parties. 8. According to Order XXXIX, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under Rule 1 or Rule 2 or brjeach of any of the terms in 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 t; te mantime, the Court directs his release. In the present case, the learned Additional District Judge had not granted injunction or made any order as mentioned above. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants had not disobeyed any order of the Court and had not violated any term. The impugned order dated 18-8-1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge is not tenable in law. Accordingly, this Misc. Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 18-8-1994 passed by the learned.