JUDGMENT The plaintiff-applicants have directed this revision against the order dated 12.5.1995 passed by IInd ADJ, Ratlam in Civil Misc. Case No. 21/92, directing plaintiff-applicants to delete names of respondents No. 9 to 23 from the cause title of the petition filed by the applicant before the trial Court u/O. 39 R. 2-A CPC. Considering the submissions of the L.C. for the parties and on perusal of 'the record as also the impugned order, it is not in dispute that in a suit filed by the applicants against non-applicant No.1 to 8, an order of temporary injunction u/O. 39 R. 1,2 CPC was passed on 16.12.1988 in Civil Suit No. 332Af87. After passing of the aforesaid order, an application on behalf of the present applicants was filed before the trial Court, complaining breach of the injunction order under the provisions of O. 39 R. 2-A CPC read with Sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against all the respondents. On service of notice on respondents No.9 to 23, an application u/O. 1 R. 10 CPC was filed for deleting their names from the aforesaid application mainly on the ground that respondents No.9 to 12 were not at all party in the original suit and no injunction order is passed against the aforesaid respondents. The learned trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the application filed on behalf of the respondents No.9 to 23 and directed petitioners to delete their names from the application filed u/O. 39 R. 2-A CPC. Aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, this revision petition is filed by the applicants. The only contention of the L.C. for applicants is that u/O. 39 R. 2-A(i) CPC, it is stated that the person guilty for disobedience or breach of the injunction order passed by the trial Court may be punished on finding him guilty for the alleged breach in the manner stated in the order 39 R. 2-A(i) of the CPC. In view of the facts stated on behalf of the applicants in the petition filed u/O. 39 R. 2-A of the CPC, it is alleged that the defendants of Civil Suit No. 332/87 as also respondents No. 9 to 23 committed breach of the alleged order of injunction. As such, a prayer was made in the application for punishing the aforesaid respondents under the provisions of O. 39 R. 2-A CPC. As such, a prayer was made in the application for punishing the aforesaid respondents under the provisions of O. 39 R. 2-A CPC. Considering the submissions of the L.C. and on perusal of the provisions of O. 39 R. 2-A CPC, in my considered opinion, under the aforesaid provision, only those persons can be punished for committing breach of injunction order who are the party to the suit in which the alleged order of injunction was passed. No third person, not a party to the suit or against whom no order of injunction is passed under O. 39 R. 1, 2 CPC, can be impleaded as party in an application filed u/O. 39 R. 2-A CPC. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find that the trial Court has committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in allowing the application filed on behalf of the respondents No.9 to 23 for deleting their names from the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff-applicants u/O. 39 R. 2-A CPC. No interference is necessary in the impugned order of the trial Court, exercising jurisdiction u/s 115 of the CPC. Consequently, this revision petition is devoid of any merit and substance and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The record of the trial Court be remitted back immediately alongwith the copy of the order.