JUDGMENT 1. THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 3rd September, 2009 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sealdah in Misc. Appeal No.33 of 2009 affirming the order being No.134 dated 19th December, 2008 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sealdah in Misc. Case No.66 of 2007 arising out of a proceeding under order 39 Rule 2A of Civil Procedure Code, at the instance of the defendants/petitioners. Heard Mr. Tandon, Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite party herein. Considered the materials on record including the order impugned. 2. LET me now consider the merit of this revisional application in the facts of the instant case. The plaintiff/opposite party filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants/petitioners herein. The plaintiffs claimed that the plaintiff no.2 is a lawful tenant under the defendants in respect of the suit premises. He further claimed that he being a tenant in the suit premises, his possession in the suit premises cannot be disturbed by the defendants in any manner whatsoever. It was further stated by the plaintiffs that the plaintiff no.1 entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant no.1 on 27th March, 1993 for purchasing the suit property from the said defendants. It was further stated therein that the said agreement is legal, valid, binding and enforceable in law. 3. ON the basis of such averments, the plaintiffs sought for a relief by way of declaration of the tenancy right of the plaintiff no.2 under the defendants in the suit premises. The plaintiffs further prayed for a relief by way of declaration that the plaintiffs have right of uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit premises and the defendants have no right to disturb the plaintiffs possession therein. A further relief by way of declaration to the effect that the verbal agreement for sale entered into between the plaintiff no.1 and the defendant no.1 on 27th March, 1993 is legal, valid, binding and enforceable at law, was sought for therein. A decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession in the suit property was also prayed for in the said suit. 4. A decree for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs possession in the suit property was also prayed for in the said suit. 4. IMMEDIATELY after filing the said suit, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction inter alia praying for an interim order of injunction for restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs peaceful possession and/or use and enjoyment of the suit property in any manner whatsoever and/or from making any unlawful attempt to drive out the plaintiffs from the suit property during the pendency of the suit. An ad-interim order of injunction was also sought for in similar manner in the said application. The learned Trial Judge passed an ad-interim order of injunction on 30th July, 1993 by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property till the hearing of the injunction application. Subsequently the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code by making a complaint against the defendants/petitioners herein as the said defendants with the help of some notorious antisocial elements and political leaders illegally threatened to remove the boundary walls and break open the main entrance door of the suit premises and also collected building materials on the suit property for raising illegal construction on the courtyard of the suit property. Such illegal acts were allegedly committed by the petitioners herein on 12th February, 1994 at about 9.45 A.M. On the basis of such allegation the said application was filed on 25th February, 1994 seeking reliefs under the provision of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No.25 of 1994. Subsequently on 31st January 1996 the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed another application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code complaining against the defendants/petitioners for committing certain acts in violation of the order of ad interim injunction dated 30th July, 1993. In the said application it was stated by the opposite parties that the petitioners herein, without obtaining any sanction plain from CMC authority, illegally constructed one structure having brick build walls on three sides upto to the height of one feet from the floor level and fenced the said structure by darma upto the height of seven feet and covered the same with tiles shade on its roof. It was further alleged therein that said construction was raised on the courtyard of the suit premises and thereby the privacy of the plaintiffs in the said premises was infringed. Such illegal acts were allegedly committed on 17th February, 1994 and on 18th February, 1994 in violation of the order of injunction. Thus, the plaintiffs filed the said application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code claiming reliefs against the petitioners under the said provision. The said application was registered as Misc. Case No.14 of 1996. The petitioners filed their written objections against both the aforesaid applications under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiffs. The allegations regarding commission of acts of violation of the order of injunction was specifically denied by the petitioners in their said objection. 5. BOTH the aforesaid Misc. Cases were ultimately dismissed for default. Subsequently both the aforesaid miscellaneous cases were restored with consent of the petitioners herein. The aforesaid miscellaneous cases were subsequently transferred to the Court of the Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sealdah and was renumbered as Misc. Case No.66 of 2007. 6. THE said miscellaneous case was ultimately decided by the learned Trial Judge ex parte as the petitioners did not ultimately come forward to contest the same before the learned Trial Judge. THE plaintiffs adduced evidence to prove their allegations against the defendants/petitioners herein regarding commission of acts of violation of the Courts order of injunction. THE plaintiffs also cited another witness being a photographer as P.W.2 who took the snap of the impugned construction. THE photographs taken by the photographer were also exhibited in the said proceeding. THE plaintiffs also proved the rent receipts to show the extent of his tenancy in the suit premises. The learned Trial Judge, after considering the pleadings of the parties as well as the uncontroverted evidence of the plaintiffs, ultimately held that the defendants/petitioners were guilty of committing the acts complained of, in the said applications. The learned Trial Judge, thus, held that both the contemnors/opposite parties are guilty of violation of the ad interim order of status quo dated 30th July, 1993. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month under the provision of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned Trial Judge, thus, held that both the contemnors/opposite parties are guilty of violation of the ad interim order of status quo dated 30th July, 1993. Accordingly, they were sentenced to undergo civil imprisonment for a period of one month under the provision of Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiffs were directed to bear the subsistence allowance of the defendants for their detention in civil prison for the said period. 7. BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Trial Judge, the defendants/petitioners preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No.33 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Judge at Sealdah. The learned Appeal Court was pleased to dismiss the said appeal by affirming the order of punishment awarded by the learned Trial Judge. While dismissing the said appeal the learned Appeal Court concurred with the findings of the learned Trial Judge. The instant revisional application is directed against the said appellate order. 8. MR. Tandon, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners firstly submitted that the learned Trial Judge committed an illegality in restoring the said miscellaneous cases without notice to his clients, even though his clients were very much on records and were contesting the said proceeding by filing objection therein. MR. Tandon further submitted that even no notice was served upon his clients after restoration of the said miscellaneous cases and as a result thereof his clients could not contest the said proceeding after its restoration before the learned Trial Judge. Thus, Mr. Tandon submitted in the aforesaid background that the proceedings which were taken up in the said miscellaneous cases subsequent to their dismissal for default, are all nullity and as such, the learned Appeal Court should have set aside the entire proceedings which were taken up in the said miscellaneous cases subsequent to their dismissal for default. 9. THIS Court does not find any substance in such submission of Mr. Tandon as it is rightly pointed out by Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the aforesaid miscellaneous cases were restored by the learned Trial Judge with the consent of the defendants/petitioners vide Order No.78 dated 4th September, 1999. Even the next date for taking steps by the plaintiffs in the proceeding was also fixed by the learned Trial Judge in the said order. 10. Chatterjee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the aforesaid miscellaneous cases were restored by the learned Trial Judge with the consent of the defendants/petitioners vide Order No.78 dated 4th September, 1999. Even the next date for taking steps by the plaintiffs in the proceeding was also fixed by the learned Trial Judge in the said order. 10. ON perusal of the certified copy of the said order produced by Mr. Chatterjee this Court does not find any illegality in the order by which the said miscellaneous cases were restored by the learned Trial Judge. In fact, the petitioners are responsible for their default as they failed to contest the said proceedings effectively though they had sufficient notice of the restoration of the said miscellaneous cases. Mr. Tandon further contended that subsequently the said miscellaneous cases were transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division at Sealdah and on such transfer, the said proceeding was renumbered as Misc. Case No.66 of 2007 but since no notice was served upon his clients either prior or even after such transfer was effected, his clients could not participate in the hearing of the said miscellaneous cases before the Court where those miscellaneous cases were transferred. 11. THIS Court also does not find any substance in such submission of Mr. Tandon as he could not produce any material to show that no such notice was served upon his clients either before or after such transfer was effected. In fact, no ground was even taken by the petitioners herein complaining non-service of notice of such transfer upon Mr. Tandons client in the memorandum of appeal filed before the learned Appeal Court. No argument regarding such non-service of notice was advanced by the petitioners herein before the learned Appeal Court. As such, this Court, in the absence of any such material, cannot believe the petitioners contention regarding non-service of notice upon them. 12. LET me now consider as to how far the learned Courts below were justified in concluding that the petitioners were guilty for violating the order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge on 30th July, 1993 in the facts of the instant case. 12. LET me now consider as to how far the learned Courts below were justified in concluding that the petitioners were guilty for violating the order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge on 30th July, 1993 in the facts of the instant case. On perusal of the orders passed by both the Courts below, this Court finds that both the Courts below while coming to the aforesaid conclusions placed much reliance upon the uncontroverted testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses and ultimately held that since the testimony of the plaintiffs witnesses remains uncontroverted and there was no contrary evidence from the side of the defendants/petitioners, the allegations of the plaintiffs/opposite parties regarding the acts of violation committed by the defendants/petitioners, were proved. 13. THEORETICALLY this Court does not find any wrong in such approach of the Courts below for such conclusion but at the same time this Court cannot be unmindful that the proceeding under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code is a proceeding of quasi criminal nature and as such, the contemnors are entitled to get the benefit of doubt when any suspicion arises about the commission of such offences or in other words when the complainant fails to prove his allegations beyond reasonable doubt. 14. LET me now assess as to how far the plaintiffs succeeded in proving their allegations regarding commission of such offences by the defendants/petitioners herein beyond reasonable doubt. If the averments made in the first application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code are taken into consideration carefully then this Court finds that no direct allegation regarding violation of the Courts order of injunction was made against the defendants/petitioners herein. In the said application the opposite parties simply complained that the petitioners were giving a threat to violate the Courts order. Some allegations were also made against the petitioners as they were allegedly trying to violate the Courts order of injunction on 12th February, 1994 at about 9.45 A.M. Since a mere threat to violate the order of injunction was complained of and further since the actual acts of violation was not complained of in the said application, this Court cannot hold that the plaintiffs/opposite parties can get any relief against the defendants/petitioners under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Civil Procedure Code on the basis of such allegations. Of course, none of the Courts below held that the defendants/petitioners can be punished for violating the Courts order on the basis of the allegation made by the opposite parties in their first application. Both the Courts below, in fact, punished the defendants/petitioners as they violated the order of injunction passed by the learned Trial Judge by committing the acts as mentioned in the subsequent application, on 17th and 18th February, 1994. 15. THOUGH at a first glance this Court did not find any reason to differ with the findings of the learned Courts below but subsequently when this Court considered the allegations made by the opposite parties in their aforesaid two applications minutely, some suspicion started developing in the minds of this Court as this Court finds that though the first application under Order 39 Rule 2A was filed by the opposite parties on 25th February, 1994 but, still then, those important incidents which allegedly had taken place on 17th and 18th February, 1994 did not find any place within the four-corners of the said application which was filed by the opposite parties in the Court below on 25th February, 1994. If those incidents really had occurred on 17th and 18th February, 1994, the opposite parties ought not to have missed to mention those incidents in their first application filed on 25th February, 1994. 16. THAT apart, if the evidence of the P.W.2 is considered carefully, then it will transpire from his deposition where he stated that even at the time of taking the snap of the impugned construction 10 on 8th March, 1994 at about 12 to 12.30 A.M. he found the work of construction was still going on. If that was really the state of affair, then the opposite parties ought not to have forgotten to mention the said incident in their subsequent application which was filed in 1996. While deciding the aforesaid miscellaneous cases as well as the appeal arising therefrom, both the Courts below placed much reliance upon the photographs of the impugned construction and concurrently held that since those impugned constructions were not mentioned either in the schedule of the plaint or in the rent receipts, such impugned construction were certainly made after the passing of the interim order of injunction in violation thereof. 17. 17. THOUGH it is true that the impugned construction does not find any place in the description of the suit property in the schedule of the plaint and/or in the injunction application but, still then, this Court feels unsafe to come to the conclusion that such construction was made in violation of the order of injunction without any other material of unquestionable character wherefrom allegations regarding raising of such construction in violation of the injunction order can be ascertained. 18. IF the aforesaid facts are taken into consideration then this Court cannot hold that the allegation regarding violation of the Courts order by the defendants/petitioners herein have been proved by the plaintiffs/ opposite parties herein beyond all reasonable doubts. Thus, this Court holds that since the allegation regarding violation of the order of injunction by the defendants/petitioners has not been proved by the plaintiffs/opposite parties herein beyond all reasonable doubts, the defendants/petitioners are entitled to get the benefit of doubts in the instant proceeding. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court holds that the order which is impugned in this revisional application cannot be maintained. The impugned order, thus, stands set aside. The revisional application is, thus, allowed. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all formalities.