MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.--- A suit for permanent injunction filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioners and respondent No.2 was contested and decreed by the learned trial Court on 21-4- 2000. A first appeal filed by the petitioners against the said judgment and decree was allowed by an Additional District Judge, Pasroor on 24-2-2004 and the suit was dismissed. It may be noted that during the pendency of the said suit an injunctive order had been issued by the learned trial Court. Respondent No.1 filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 2(3), C.P.C. Complaining the disobedience of the said injunctive order. The application was proceeded with and after a trial it was found that the petitioners have disobeyed the injunction and they were directed to vacate the land, possession whereof had been taken in violation of the injunctive order and to deliver it to respondent No 1. This was done vide order, dated 21-2-2000. This order was never challenged by the petitioners in any manner prescribed by law. Civil Revision No.1380 of 2004 was filed by respondent No.1 to question the said judgment, dated 24-2-2004 of the learned Additional District Judge. This civil revision was dismissed on 19-5-2004. Para. 7 of the said judgment reads as follows:-- "I may further note here that so far as the possession is concerned, it has been found as a fact by the learned trial Court while deciding an application under Order III, rule 2(3), C.P.C. Vide order, dated 21-2-2000 that respondent No.1 took over the possession in disobedience of the injunctive order. He was directed to deliver back the possession after removing the structure. According to the learned counsel no appeal was filed against this order. If this is so, the said order may be executed by the petitioner."
Respondent No.1 then filed an application for implementation of the said order, dated 20-3-2000 which has been allowed by the learned trial Court on 25-1-2006. A first appeal has been dismissed by Additional District Judge on 4-7-2006.
2. Leaned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the suit was ultimately dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court and the judgment was upheld by this Court, the order passed after taking cognizance of the disobedience of temporary injunction stands wiped out.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, supports the impugned order with reference to the afore-noted facts of the case.
4. I have reproduced above the entire history of the case. The said contention of the learned counsel has no force. It is an admitted position on record that said order, dated 21-3-2000 passed under Order XXXIX, rule 2, C.P.C. Was not challenged by the petitioners in any manner. Needless to state that an appeal is provided for against the said order under section 104(1)(i) read with Order XLIII, rule 1(r), C.P.C. However, no such appeal was filed. The said order as such has attained finality.
There is no allegation that the Court had no jurisdiction to issue the temporary injunction and in view of the unchallenged findings recorded that the injunction has been disobeyed, the Court has the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same and to order restoration of possession taken in violation of the same. Mere fact that the injunction was later vacated or that the suit itself is dismissed at a later point of time would not wipe out the disobedience/ contempt committed by the petitioners, The civil revision accordingly is dismissed.