JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 22.6.2018 passed by trial court, whereby, application moved by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure,1908, was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the suit filed by the appellant, trial court had restrained the defendant from raising construction. Despite the said fact, respondent No.2 on behalf of the defendant had continued raising construction over the property-in-question. Order 39 Rule 2A CPC reads as under:- "[2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction (1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on 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 the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.]" 3. Thus, in case there is disobedience of any injunction order passed by the court under Order 39 Rule 1 or 2 then as per Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, the court granting injunction can detain the person, who has committed breach in civil prison. 4. Learned trial court while dismissing the application moved by the appellant has taken into consideration the fact that so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, he was not a party in the suit nor it had been established on record that he was working on behalf of the defendant. The injunction order was not passed in the presence of respondent No.2 nor there was anything on record to show that the injunction order had been served on respondent No.2. Defendant Purushottam Lal has died during the pendency of the suit. 5. The injunction order was not passed in the presence of respondent No.2 nor there was anything on record to show that the injunction order had been served on respondent No.2. Defendant Purushottam Lal has died during the pendency of the suit. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the reasons given by the trial court while dismissing the application moved by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC are sound reasons and call for no interference. 6. Dismissed.