JUDGMENT : AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this petition may be allowed and after setting aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.49 of 2006, the petition filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC may kindly be ordered to dismissed and justice be done.” 2. The petitioner has challenged judgment dated 23.11.2009, passed by the learned Appellate Court, in terms whereof, the appeal filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents, namely, Mansha Ram, under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the Civil Procedure Code, was allowed. 3. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the predecessor-in-interest of the present respondents filed a petition under Order 39 Rule 2-A of the Civil Procedure Code before the learned Trial Court alleging therein disobedience of an order passed by the learned Trial Court on 27.06.1994. 4. In terms of Annexure P-2, dated 30.08.2006, the application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court by returning the following findings:- “It is alleged by the petitioner in his statement before the Court that on 27.6.1994 the respondents were restrained from interfering in any manner in the existing shop in possession of the applicant- petitioner as a tenant or from evicting him forcibly. However, respondents even after being duly served did not stop interfering ever the shop in possession of the petitioner. The respondents kept chizzling the Walls of the shop as well as damaged the roof of the shop. Finally, on 11.9.1994 the shop was manually demolished by the respondents. In his cross- examination, he has denied that he had net paid the rent of the said shop for the last 13 to 14 years; the shop was in dire need of repairs. He has also denied that he had taken away all his office articles from the said shop even before 11 September, 1954. Petitioner has asserted that en 8.9.1994, AW-3 Local Commissioner Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate had visited the shop and gave his report Ext. AW3/A and alse prepared plan. The said report of the Local Commissioner depicted that respondents had demolished the Wall up to the lintels there were cracks in the shop etc. Petitioner has asserted that en 8.9.1994, AW-3 Local Commissioner Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate had visited the shop and gave his report Ext. AW3/A and alse prepared plan. The said report of the Local Commissioner depicted that respondents had demolished the Wall up to the lintels there were cracks in the shop etc. He has also stated that respondents have demolished the lintel up to the wall of the shop of the plaintiff. AW-4 Manoher Lal has also stated that on 11.9.1994 he saw all the respondents manually demolishing the shop under the tenancy of plaintiff/petitioner. AW-5 Amin Chand had brought on record the copy Ext. Aw5/A which is a letter written by Executive Engineer to S.P., whereby it is stated that the shop in question has been demolished manually and had not fallen down due to natural reasons. These allegations on behalf of the petitioner have been denied in toto by the respondent Kamlesh Kumari appearing on behalf of the respondents, has stated that since 1983, petitioner had net paid the rent of the shop, as such, the shop was in dire need of repairs. In 1994, in the Month of September, the shop collapsed due to heavy rain. It is submitted by her that petitioner had already taken away a11 his office articles from the said shop and, as such, there was no reason to eject or dispossess him forcibly from the said shop. She has also stated that once the shop had fallen down the respondents had only collected the debris and had not manually demolished the shop. In her cress- examination, the had denied that she had violated any orders of this Court. This statement of respondent Kamlesh Kumari is also supported by RW-2 Gian Chand. In the present Case, the petitioner had to prove that on 10/11th September, 1994, the shop in question was manually demolished by the respondents in violation of the stay order of this Court. As per the statements of petitioner witnesses, the shop had been manually demolished by the respondent. AW-3 Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate has admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen anyone demolishing the said shop. He has also deposed that this fact was brought to his knowledge by the parties to the petition. He has also stated that he did not write statements of any of the parties while preparing the report. AW-3 Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate has admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen anyone demolishing the said shop. He has also deposed that this fact was brought to his knowledge by the parties to the petition. He has also stated that he did not write statements of any of the parties while preparing the report. The most important point to be noted is that Local Commissioner Shri K.C. Bhatia had visited the spot on 8.9.1994 and it is the Case of the petitioner that at that time the shop in question was intact and was only demolished on 10/11-9- 1994. Thus, this report of the Local Commissioner is not of any value for determining whether on 11.9.1994, the shop was manually demolished by the respondents or not. AW-4 Manoher Lal has stated that he was present on the spot on 11.9.1994 and saw the respondents demolishing the shop in questions. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present on the spot but was taken to the spot by the petitioner stating that respondents are demolishing his office and hence Manoher Lal has to come with him. This witness has admitted that he has deposed in the criminal Case filed by the petitioner against the respondents He has also stated clearly that he is one of the clients of petitioner who is an Advocate by professions Mancher Lal has also clearly admitted in his cross- examination that there are other shops on the spot, a hotel and also a sweets shop. All these shops were opened at the relevant time and many people were also coming on the road. This shows that there were other eye witnesses to this incident. However, petitioner has not produced any witness from the locality in support of his case. It is difficult to understand as to why one of the clients of the petitioner was specifically taken to the scene of alleged incident and was asked to depose in favour of the petitioners. Coming to the report Ext. AW-5/A stated to have been prepared by an Executive Engineer. As per the shop in question had been manually demolished and had not fallen down due to natural reasons. It is important to mention that the propounder of the said report has net been examined before this Court. Coming to the report Ext. AW-5/A stated to have been prepared by an Executive Engineer. As per the shop in question had been manually demolished and had not fallen down due to natural reasons. It is important to mention that the propounder of the said report has net been examined before this Court. The report amounts to in expert evidence, it may not be admissible unless respondents have given an opportunity to cross- examine the person who had prepared the same. Accordingly, the report is, as such, not admissible in order to prove the Case of the petitioner. Respondents had not disputed that the said stay order was duly served to them. It is, however, contended on their behalf that the shop in question had fallen down dun to natural reasons and was not manually demolished by them. It has been held in Sudhir Namasudra and others vs. Purnendu Kumar Dan AIR1980 GAUHATI 1 that: "It is an established law that establishment of violation of order of injunction, being punitive proceedings, require stricter proof than Civil actions." The proceedings Under Section 39 Rule 2-A CPC are quasi Criminal proceedings. The petitioner in order to prove his case had to prove beyond doubt that respondents had willfully disobeyed the injunction order of this Court. In the present Case, it has not been proved to the satisfaction of this court that the shop in question had been manually demolished by the respondents, thus willfully disobeying the injunction order passed by the court. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the respondents. In view of my findings to issue No. 1 above, the petition Under Order 39 Rule 2-A, CPC is not maintainable. The application is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The file, after due completion be consigned to the Record Room.” 5. In appeal, these findings have been reversed by the learned Appellate Court by returning the following findings:- “The main question for decision in this case is, as to whether the respondents, herein, have willfully disobeyed the injunction order passed by the learned trial Court. A copy of the injunction order passed by the learned trial Court, that is, Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur is Ext.A-1 on record, which is dated Jane 27, 1994. A copy of the injunction order passed by the learned trial Court, that is, Senior Sub Judge, Hamirpur is Ext.A-1 on record, which is dated Jane 27, 1994. The respondents/defendants, had been, thereby restrained from interfering in any manner in the existing shop in possession of the appellant Shri Mänsha Ram as a tenant, or from ejecting him forcibly illegally from the said shop. Such order was served upon Ramesh Chand, respondent vide report Ext. AW-7/B on June 29, 1994 and on Anant Ram respondent vide report Ext. AW-7/C on the same day. However, the allegation is that, thereafter, the rented premises in possession of the appellant, Shri Manshq Ram, were demolished by the respondents including the deceased, respondent Smt. Kamlesh Kumari in the morning of September 11, 1994. Now it will be seen that prior to alleged demolition, Shri K.C. Bhatia had been appointed a Local Commissioner by the Court of learned Sub Judge 1" Class, Court No. 1. Hamirpur where other litigation with respect to the shop premises was pending between Mansha Ram and Anant Ram etc., respondents. As per the report of Shri K.C. Bhatia, Local Commissioner Ext AW-3/A read with site plan Ext. AW-3/B, a portion of the building had been demolished by the defendants, which was noticed by the Local Commissioner on September 8, 1994 when he visited the spot. The appellant had also lodged FIR, copy of which is Ext. AW-2/A about such demolition. In that criminal case, the Executive Engineer (B&R), Hamirpur was asked to visit the spot and to report, whether the premises had fallen down in natural course, us is the case of the defendants/respondents, or they had manually demolished it. A copy of such report is Ext. AW-5 A on record. As per such report, the building had been demolished manually. Such Executive Engineer could not be available for his examination on path in the Court because of his death earlier. The report was, therefore, brought on record though the official concerned AW-5 Amin Chand, Junior Assistant of the Office of the said Executive Engineer. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, Shri Mansha Ram, petitioner/appellant has himself stated on oath that after the service of the injunction order, the defendants were noticed by him in the morning of September 10/11, 1994, demolishing the premises when Shri R.D. Kaundal and Manohar etc., were also with him. As far as the oral evidence is concerned, Shri Mansha Ram, petitioner/appellant has himself stated on oath that after the service of the injunction order, the defendants were noticed by him in the morning of September 10/11, 1994, demolishing the premises when Shri R.D. Kaundal and Manohar etc., were also with him. Manohar Lal (AW-4) has also duly supported such allegation as noticed above. His testimony cannot be discarded only on the ground that he was a Client of Shri Mansha Ram petitioner/appellant who is a practicing Advocate at Hamirpur. It was natural for an Advocate to have taken the help of his client who was readily available with him. Therefore, there is nothing to disbelieve the allegation of Shri Mansha Ram that the premises in question were demolished by the present respondents. No doubt, Kamlesh Kumari (now deceased) and RW-2 Gian Chand have stated that the premises had fallen down due to heavy rains which occurred in the month of October, 1994, but as against such oral evidence, there is Expert evidence also on file to the effect that the premises had been manually demolished, as discussed hereinabove including the spot report of Shri K.C. Bhatia, Advocate who also noticed that the defendants had been demolishing a portion of the premises in question even on 8th September 1994 when he visited the spot on a direction of the Court. Therefore, there is unambiguous evidence on record that it is the respondents who have demolished the premises in question with a view to getting it vacated forcibly from the present appellant/petitioner who is a practicing Advocate at Hamirpur. As such, the respondents are guilty of breach of injunction order and the view taken to the contrary by the learned trial Court is dehors the evidence on record. The impugned is, therefore, liable to be set aside. The point is answered accordingly. In view of my findings on Point No.1 above, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petition under Section 39 Rule 2-A CPC is allowed holding the respondents Anant Ram and Ramesh Chand guilty of willful disobedience of the injunction order, copy of which is Ex.t A-1. The point is answered accordingly. In view of my findings on Point No.1 above, the present appeal is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the petition under Section 39 Rule 2-A CPC is allowed holding the respondents Anant Ram and Ramesh Chand guilty of willful disobedience of the injunction order, copy of which is Ex.t A-1. Therefore, to begin with, their immovable property is ordered to be attached initially for a period of six months for which purpose, the proceedings will be drawn separately on filing of list of immovable property of the respondents by the appellants.” 6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Authority is not sustainable in law. 7. Learned Trial Court while dismissing the petition filed under Order 39, Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure categorically returned the findings that the alleged violation of order dated 27.06.1994 was to the effect that the premises in issue were demolished intentionally by disobeying the injunction by the contemnor on 10/11th September, 1994 between 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. Learned Trial Court further held that, whereas, the case of the plaintiff-petitioner was that the shop was manually demolished by the contemnor on 11.09.1994, the plaintiff-petitioner asserted that AW-3, Local Commissioner, K.C. Bhatia, Advocate, had visited the shop on 08.09.1994, who also gave his report (Ex. AW-3/A) and the said report of the Local Commissioner depicted that the contemnor had demolished the wall upto the lintel. Learned Trial Court took note of the fact that AW-3, Sh. K.C. Bhatia, Advocate, had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen anyone demolishing the shop and said fact was brought to his knowledge by the parties to the petition. Learned Trial Court also noticed that Sh. K.C. Bhatia, had visited the spot on 08.09.1994 and not on the alleged date when the demolition took place. K.C. Bhatia, Advocate, had admitted in his cross-examination that he had not seen anyone demolishing the shop and said fact was brought to his knowledge by the parties to the petition. Learned Trial Court also noticed that Sh. K.C. Bhatia, had visited the spot on 08.09.1994 and not on the alleged date when the demolition took place. Similarly, learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that other witness produced by the contempt petitioner, namely, Manohar Lal, AW-4, also stated in his cross- examination that he was not present at the spot, but, he was brought to the spot by the plaintiff who informed him that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents was demolishing his office and, therefore, he came alongwith the contempt petitioner to the spot. Learned Trial Court also took note of the fact that said witness had admitted that he had deposed in the criminal case filed by the contempt petitioner against the contemnor and further that he was a client of the contempt petitioner, who happened to be a lawyer by profession. 8. On these bases, learned Trial Court held that as it could not be proved beyond doubt that the contemnor had willfully disobeyed the injunction order passed by the Court, it dismissed the proceedings by observing that the proceedings being quasi criminal, the party had to prove its case beyond doubt. 9. Learned Appellate Court upset the findings returned by the learned Trial Court on whims and conjunctures by believing the version of the witnesses of the plaintiff without appreciating that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Trial Court. Learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that the statement of the plaintiff witnesses raised doubt regarding their credibility, for the reason that when the Local Commissioner did not visit the site on the date when the alleged demolition took place, it is not understood, how the evidence of the Local Commissioner could have been taken into consideration by the Appellate Court while convicting the present petitioner. Similarly, learned Appellate Court also erred in not appreciating that the other witness Manohar Lal was also an interested witness, for the reason that he was not present at the spot when injunction was allegedly violated by the contemnor, but, he was brought to the spot purportedly by the plaintiff and it was also on record that besides being the client of the plaintiff, he had earlier deposed in favour of the plaintiff and against the contemnor in other matters. Besides this, learned Appellate Court erred in not appreciating that nothing prevented the plaintiff from examining the nearby residents of the area including the persons, who were having their commercial establishments in and around the area. However, the plaintiff chose not to examine anyone from the surrounding area, which also caste a doubt over the story of the plaintiff and in this backdrop prudence demanded that benefit of doubt indeed had to be given to the alleged contemnor. 10. As all these aspects of the matter stood ignored by the learned Appellate Court, which Court erroneously interfered with the findings returned by the learned Trial Court, therefore, this petition is allowed. Judgment dated 23.11.2009, passed by the learned Appellate Court, is set aside and order dated 30.08.2006, passed by the learned Trial Court, is upheld. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.