JUDGMENT 1. 1. Heard and perused the order. Ordinarily, in a temporary injunction, an application moved under O. 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC it is necessary to ascertain the position which exists on the date of the cause or on the date of filing of the suit or at the most on the date of filing of the application for the grant of temporary injunction. In this case the Commissioner was appointed on 26th June, 1988, in the preserve of the parties and on the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for both the parties and the Commissioner were present and the Commissioner signed the proceedings. It was not necessary to issue a separate order. It was the duty of the learned counsel for the petitioner to deposit the fee of the Commissioner. 2. Mr. Mishra.,is not in a position to say that what action has been taken by his client in the matter of deposit of the fee of the Commissioner. He moved a second application for the appointment of the Commissioner and the second application cannot be entertained because once the Commissioner has already been appointed. In the instant case, the Court was justified in not appointing new Commissioner. However, old Commissioner will survive. As soon as the fee of the Commissioner is deposited he will examine the position. However, in the matter of grant of temporary injunction, as it exists earlier might have changed. 3. Mr. Sadarangani, has invited my attention to the case of Smt. Harvinder Kaur & another v. Godha Ram and another. AIR 1979 P & H. 76 . This case foes not application (sic apply) in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not a case of appointing a new Commissioner but it is a case of continuation of the Commissioner who was appointed earlier. Therefore, the case cited by Mr. Sadarangani, does not apply. 4. In the result. the revision petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and the order of the court below is set-aside. 5. The revision petition is disposed of as indicated above. No order as to costs.Revision disposed of. *******