JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. Appellant-plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 104 CPC to challenge order dated 11.09.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Bhinmal, District Jalore. 2. By the order impugned, learned Court below has rejected application of the appellant under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC by observing that there is no concrete proof furnished by him to indicate/show that respondents have violated temporary injunction granted by the Court. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 4. There remains no quarrel that under CPC a specific provision is incorporated for taking penal action against an individual, who has violated order of temporary injunction by proceeding against him under Rule 2A of Order 39 CPC. The proceedings under the aforesaid provision are in the nature of contempt proceedings, and therefore, the incumbent, who is complaining about any disobedience by the other party of an order of temporary injunction, is required to furnish strict proof which is almost akin to a criminal trial. The law is trite that when a statute prescribes a penal provision the proof for omission on the part of opposite party cannot be inferred on mere preponderance of probabilities. Learned Court below, while examining the evidence and other material available on record, has recorded its definite finding that appellant has not been able to substantiate the deliberate disobedience of the order of temporary injunction warranting penal action under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. As the learned Court below has exercised its discretion judiciously, in my view, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the same. Consequently, the instant appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.