Judgment 1. This civil revision has been filed by the defendant against the order of the 5th Additional District Judge, Samastipur dated 22 December, 2001 in Misc. Appl. No. 10 of 1996 (Mahendra Pd. Singh vs. Maheshwar Singh & Ors.). The appeal arose out of an order dated 21 May, 1996 of the Subordinate Judge, Rosera in Misc. Case no. 21 of 1993 filed by the plaintiffs complaining that during the pendency of the suit there was violation of an injunction dated 15 February, 1993 by the defendant and for that he be punished. It was a status quo order restraining any construction over the suit land and to maintain the status quo. 2. The civil revision has been filed against the concurrent findings of two courts below holding that the defendant, the revisionist before the High Court, violated the terms of the injunction. A special issue was framed by the trial court in the matter relating to the violation of an injunction under Order 39, Rule 2(A). The issue as framed runs thus : Whether the appellant/opposite party had knowledge about the impugned order dated 2.3.1993 and in spite of that knowledge he had knowingly disobeyed the same by changing status quo of the suit land from 7.3.1993 to 10.3.1993 as alleged by the applicant. 3. The main thrust of the argument before the court by the learned counsel of the revisionist was to the effect that on the arrival of the process server and the notice being served the construction had been ceased and no further construction had been carried on. This argument did not seem io be compatible with the plea taken before the court below, to the effect, that the construction over the suit land by the defendant had been made in the year 1992. When this aspect or defence was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the revisionist, he had no hesitation in making a submission that this part of the defence taken by his client was false. This leaves the defendant in the position of a veritable liar. To make a false plea renders a party liable for perjury. The trial court was kind enough so was the appellate court not to have noticed this aspect. Both the courts below should have lined up the defendant for facing an additional charge for making a false statement in a judicial proceeding. 4. To make a false plea renders a party liable for perjury. The trial court was kind enough so was the appellate court not to have noticed this aspect. Both the courts below should have lined up the defendant for facing an additional charge for making a false statement in a judicial proceeding. 4. Now coming to the main issue, parties laid evidence on the issue which was framed by the trial court. The issue was not confined to the aspect that the construction was carried until 7 March, 1993. The issue was clear that the defendant had been charged with an allegation of violation of an injuction between the period 7 March, 1993 to 10 March, 1993. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge considered the facts, the evidence as on record and he wrote the finding that the defendant had intentionally and deliberately flouted and disregarded the order of maintaining the status quo with impunity despite having acquired knowledge of the same. The lower appellate court agreed with this finding. This aspect is noticed in paragraph 13 of the lower appellate courts order. 6. In so far as the date 7 March, 1993 is concerned, the evidence, which was laid by the parties to the cross examination, not excluding the findings recorded by the courts below was, to the effect, that the defendant-petitioner inspite of having knowledge of the order had deliberately-showed disrespect Jo the order by declining to accept service. The process server (A.W.7) was examined. He stated that he went to village Kerai Tola and handed over the show cause to the defendant, who read the notice and declined to acknowledge the service in the presence of witnesses (A.Ws.4 & 6). The evidence of the process server was corroborated by A.Ws. 4 & 6 that the notice of the court was declined. This itself is disrespect to the court which issued notice. 7. ln the cross-examination, the defendant first made a statement that he had not received a summon but simultaneously in the same breath he admitted that he received the notice on 7 March itself. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that there is an inescapable conclusion that notice was served on the defendant on 7 March, 1993 even before arrival of the Pleader Commissioner. Both the courts below came to the conclusion that there is an inescapable conclusion that notice was served on the defendant on 7 March, 1993 even before arrival of the Pleader Commissioner. Thereafter, the Pleader Commissioner noticed that construction over the suit land was going on merrily with the labourers working and that this violation continued on 7 March, 1993, 8 March, 1993 and 10 March, 1993. 8. The defendant also took the plea that the injuction was subsequently vacated. On this the lower appellate court rejected the contention on the ground that in the matter relating to Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalfa & anoth. vs. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1997 S.C. 1240 , the Supreme Court had held in no uncertain term that if an interim order of an injunction passed in a suit is flouted and disobeyed notwithstanding that even the suit may be without jurisdiction the defendants are liable to be punished for violation of the interim order. 9. This is a matter which should not be taken so lightly. Rule of law in a democracy basically rests how the lowest authority of the law is respected. In this simplicity and principle of acceptance of governance rests the rule of law. Violation of an injunction passed by a court is contempt. In India it is rampant. Like in the present case lawyers have debated on it and have no hesitation in making a submission that their clients had made a wrong statement. lf a litigant makes false statement in a court of law he should be held liable for perjury and sent behind the bars without compassion or kindness. 10. If the superior court cannot save the lowest courts of the land ensuring that the orders passed by them will be strictly observed, then the disease will travel further and up and it will inflict the hierarchy of the courts, A phenomenon which is rampant today. 11. In the circumstances, the court is unable to certify that any of the three factors so enumerated for the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction exists. The question of any circumstance being without jurisdiction does not arise. There is no irregularity in any of the orders of the court nor is any order of the court manifestly erroneous. 11. In the circumstances, the court is unable to certify that any of the three factors so enumerated for the High Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction exists. The question of any circumstance being without jurisdiction does not arise. There is no irregularity in any of the orders of the court nor is any order of the court manifestly erroneous. As deliberately as it could be done and with impunity, the defendant disobeyed the order 21 May 1996 of the Subordinate Judge in Misc. Case no. 21 of 1993 (Maheshwar Singh & Ors. vs. Mahendra Pd. Singh). This order was affirmed by the appellate court. In the circumstances, the punishment awarded to the defendant to be imprisoned for one month was correct. 12. The Registrar General of the High Court will transmit this order to the trial court concerned forthwith without delay. The trial court will ensure that the defendant is arrested and serves out the one month sentence. Any let or hindrance so caused by the defendant, the order of the trial court will entail him to another imprisonment of one month more. 13. Thus, the revision is dismissed with cost.