Short Note : 1. The plaintiff-applicant has instituted the suit in which this revision arises far permanent injunction against the defendant-non-applicant, Municipal Corporation, Bhopal, to restrain it from demolishing the building of which the plaintiff is in occupation. The Corporation is claiming to demolish the building on the ground that it has become unsafe for human inhabitation. The plaintiff applied for temporary injunction. With the consent of the parties, one A.J. Joshi was appointed the Commissioner for inspecting the house. The Commissioner submitted his report an 6th April 1977. The report is against the plaintiff. The plaintiff applied to the Court that he should be given an opportunity to cross-examine the Commissioner before his application for temporary injunction is finally decided. The Court allowed that application and opportunity was given to the plaintiff to cross-examine the Commissioner. On the date fixed for the examination of the Commissioner, it was reported that the Commissioner has gone to America and will be returning in November. To avoid delay in disposing of the application for temporary injunction, the Court has revoked the leave granted to the plaintiff for cross-examining the Commissioner. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 2. The report of a Commissioner is itself evidence under Order 26 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, but the Court has discretion to examine the Commissioner. In an application for temporary injunction, the matter is normally decided on affidavits and no party has a right to cross-examine any witness or a party. It cannot, therefore, be said that the plaintiff had a right to cross-examine the Commissioner. It is true that leave was granted by the Court to the plaintiff to cross-examine the Commissioner, but in the special circumstances of the case the Court could also withdraw that leave. The application for temporary injunction has to be decided as early as possible. The decision of that application cannot be delayed till the return of the Commissioner from America. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant argued that the Commissioner's report is vague and the inspection of the house and local investigation made by the Commissioner were imperfect. All these defects in the report of the Commissioner, if they really exist, can be pointed out to the Court below at the time of hearing of the application for temporary injunction. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-applicant argued that the Commissioner's report is vague and the inspection of the house and local investigation made by the Commissioner were imperfect. All these defects in the report of the Commissioner, if they really exist, can be pointed out to the Court below at the time of hearing of the application for temporary injunction. If the Court feels that it is necessary in the interest of justice to appoint another Commissioner, it can also do that. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that in withdrawing the leave granted to the plaintiff to cross-examine the Commissioner, the Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction, or with illegality or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. Revision dismissed.