JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. The allegation contained in the present petition is that order passed by this Court on 28.11.2017, restraining the respondents herein from raising any construction over the suit land has been willfully disobeyed by them by continuing to raise construction over the same even after passing of the said order. In order to substantiate the said fact, alongwith the petition, certain photographs are appended as Annexure C-3. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that after the passing of the restraint order by this Court, no construction whatsoever has been raised over the suit premises and in fact whatever construction was raised, the same was raised as far back as in the year 2014. 3. When learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to which of the photographs appended as Annexure C-3 depicts the position of the suit land as it existed on 28.11.2017, i.e., the day when the order was passed by the Court, learned counsel has fairly submitted that from the photographs, the same cannot be deciphered, because the only photograph in which a person can be seen with a newspaper in her hands, pertains to the year 2014. However, he has submitted that alongwith his rejoinder, he has appended another photograph as Annexure C-4, which depicts the position as it existed on 05.12.2017. 4. Be that as it may, in my considered view, in order to substantiate the factum of order dated 28.11.2017 having been willfully disobeyed by the respondents, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have placed on record by way of cogent material the position of the suit premises as it existed on 28.11.2017, because in the absence of the same, this Court cannot infer that there is any breach of the order passed on 28.11.2017. 5. As the consequence of contempt power being exercised by the Court is punitive in nature, therefore, unless the Court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there is disobedience of the Court order, in my considered view, no action can be taken against the alleged contemnor. 6. As the petitioner has not been able to substantiate the alleged willful disobedience of the Court order dated 28.11.2017, this petition is dismissed. Notices are discharged.