JUDGMENT : Argumentsheard. 2.This revision is directed against the order dated 5-12-2011 passed by FirstCivil Judge, Class I, Katni in MJC No. 02/2012, anapplication under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short'CPC'), whereby plea of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners by way of anapplication under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC, wasrejected. 3.The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining thepetitioners from encroaching upon the suit house together with an applicationunder Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC for temporary injunction. Theapplication was dismissed vide order dated 26-6-2010 passed by Second CivilJudge, Class II, Katni in Civil Suit No. 69-A/10. Therespondent preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. The appeal wasallowed vide order dated 17-3-2011 passed by III Addl. District Judge (FTC), Katni in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 24/10 and,accordingly, the petitioners were restrained from interfering with the possessionof the respondent on the suit house. 4.A bare perusal of the application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151of the Code would reveal that objection to jurisdiction was based on the factthat the injunction order, said to have been disobeyed, was passed by theAppellate Court and it was overruled by learned Civil Judge for the reason that"the Court granting injunction" means the Court, which was hearingthe suit or the Court to which it has been transferred for trial. 5.While placing implicit reliance on the decision of a Single Bench of this Courtin Allanoor Vs. Ramgopal ,1987 MPWN 237, learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that theimpugned order deserves to be set aside as one without jurisdiction because thealleged branch of injunction granted in appeal was punishable by the AppellateCourt only. However, in that case, the earlier decision to the contrary asrendered in Balu Vs . Nandram , 1969 MPLJ Note 30, though concerning the provisionof Order 39 Rule 2 (3) of the un-amended Code, does not find reference. Theprovision of Order 39 Rule 2 (3) (supra), was omitted and a new Rule, i.e.,Order 39 Rule 2-A was inserted by Act 104 of 1976 w.e.f .1-2-1977 in accordance with the suggestion given by Macpherson ,J., while speaking for the Bench for Patna High Court in Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Theprovision of Order 39 Rule 2 (3) (supra), was omitted and a new Rule, i.e.,Order 39 Rule 2-A was inserted by Act 104 of 1976 w.e.f .1-2-1977 in accordance with the suggestion given by Macpherson ,J., while speaking for the Bench for Patna High Court in Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. Chhabila Koiri ,AIR 1936 Patna 23, but, fact of the matter is that the power to punish disobedience ofinjunction continued to remain with the Court ordering injunction. For a readyreference, the provisions may be reproduced thus : - Rule2 (3) Rule2-A Consequenceof disobedience or breach of injunction Incase of disobedience, or of breach of any such terms, the Court granting aninjunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience orbreach to be attached, and may also order such person to detained in the civilprison for a term not exceeding six months, unless in the meantime the Courtdirects his release. (1)In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made underRule 1 or Rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction wasgranted or the order made, of the Court granting the injunction or making theorder, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may orderthe property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to beattached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison fora term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs hisrelease. 6.In other words, both the provisions are substantially similar and, therefore,as explained by the Full Bench of this Court in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association Vs. State of M.P. ,2003 Arb . W.L.J. 226 (FB) = 2003 (1) MPLJ 513 , the earlierdecision given by a Bench of equal strength in Balu 's case (supra), interpreting the expression "Court grantinginjunction" still holds the field as the binding precedent. 7.Moreover, the only decision viz., Shashank Vs . Naraindas , AIR 1973 MP 303 ,distinguished in Allanoor's case (supra), alsorelates to interpretation of the words "Court granting aninjunction". 7.Moreover, the only decision viz., Shashank Vs . Naraindas , AIR 1973 MP 303 ,distinguished in Allanoor's case (supra), alsorelates to interpretation of the words "Court granting aninjunction". Explaining the effect of Sections 36, 37 and 150 of the CPCin Shashank's case (supra), the then Chief Justice,even without making reference to the view taken in Balu's case (supra), virtually re-affirmed the same after considering judgments of thevarious High Courts on the question as to whether the Court to which the suitis transferred is competent to entertain an application under Order 39, Rule 2(3). It was observed : - "Words"Court granting an injunction" can only he understood to mean the Court which is trying the suit in which the injunction is grantedand which has the jurisdiction to grant an injunction." 8.To sum up, the decision in the case of Allanoor (supra), was rendered not only by failing to take note of an earlier decisionon the point but also in ignorance of relevant analogous statutory provisionsas contained in Sections 36 and 37 of the CPC. It is, therefore, required to beignored as per in curium. Further, in view of well settled position of law onthe point, the decision need not be referred to a Division Bench. 9.Needless to say that the order under challenge does not suffer from anypalpable error of jurisdiction. 10.In the result, the revision stands dismissed.