JUDGMENT 1. - This revision has been directed against the order dated 10.5.1989, by which the trial court has taken on record the two reports of the Commissioner, who inspected the site during the pendency of the appeal. 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the non-petitioners filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner. The suit was dismissed by the trial court on 23.9.1987. Against this decree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed first appeal. In first appeal, the appellate court appointed commissioner for inspection of the site, who inspected the site and submitted its report dated 17.1.1988 and 185.1988. At the time of arguments, it was argued by the counsel for the plaintiff that though the findings were in his favour but the operative part was against him. This position was not disputed by the defendant before the appellate court. Under these circumstances, the appellate court allowed the appeal and directed the trial court to decide the suit afresh after hearing counsel for both the parties. After remand, the plaintiff submitted an application that before deciding the suit, it is necessary that the site be inspected by the Hon'ble court.This application was rejected by the trial court. The plaintiff submitted second application requesting the court for taking on record the two reports of the Commissioner dated 17.1.1988 and 185.1988. The trial court allowed the application and took the reports on record. Against this order of the trial court, the defendant petitioner has filed the present revision application. 3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. In my view, there is no error of jurisdiction. Any how, the petitioner is permitted to raise his objections before the trial court regarding the validity or otherwise of the reports. 4. With these observations the revision is disposed of.Revision disposed of. *******