Judgment :- M.R. Hariharan Nair, J. The additional 3rd defendant in O.S.306 of 1999 of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam is the revision petitioner. He challenges the judgment passed in C.M. A. 47 of 1999 by the Addl. Sub Judge, Kottayam whereby the interim injunction granted in I. A. 1307 of 1999 in the said suit was confirmed. 2. The suit itself is for a Prohibitory Injunction restraining the defendant from conducting a toddy shop in the scheduled property on the ground that it violates the provisions in the Abkari Act relating to the conduct of such shops in so far as it is within 400 meters from a Harijan Colony and a temple. The plaintiffs were inhabitants of the 'Girijan Settlement Colony' of Ward No.10 of Mundakayam Panchayat The additional 3rd defendant took the stand under R.6(2) of the Abkari Shops (Disposal in auction) Rules, 1974, even in the previous year there was licence granted for conducting the shop, that it worked in Building No. 775 of Ward No. 10 of Mundakayam Panchayat; that there is practical difficulty in shifting the shop after finding a new building and that the Government has granted sanction for the conduct of the shops in a particular building. It was also pointed out that a similar suit filed in the previous year a;s O.S, 273 of 1998 was dismissed by the Munsiff s Court and that the Commission Report filed in the case cannot be looked into in the present suit. 3. The Court below considered the contentions in the light of Ext. Al and BI to B5 marked in the suit and found that the petitioner was entitled to get temporary injunction as prayed for in so far as there is prima facie evidence to show that the shop was within the prohibited distance. 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Commission Report is O.S.273 of 1998 is inadmissible in evidence except after examining the Commissioner and the Court below also erred in relying on photo copies of documents produced by the petitioner. 5. I have heard the respondent also. I have also heard the learned Addl.Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and also the counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 6. The legal proposition that the Commission Report in another suit cannot be accepted in evidence without examining the the Commissioner is indisputable. 5. I have heard the respondent also. I have also heard the learned Addl.Government Pleader appearing for respondents 3 and 4 and also the counsel for respondents 1 and 2. 6. The legal proposition that the Commission Report in another suit cannot be accepted in evidence without examining the the Commissioner is indisputable. It is true that the Court below has acted upon the contents of the the Report produced as Ext. Al when the question of Temporary Injunction of urgent nature is raised there may not be time available to the Court to examine the the Commissioner and then to act upon such document and that is apparently the reason why the said procedure was not followed. Now that serious objection is raised regarding the admissibility of the Report, it is only fit and proper that the Report is considered only after compliance with the legal formalities. There is also merit in the contention that the judgment produced in the case as Ext. B1, photo copy of notice marked as Ext. B2 and the photo copy of <3.0. produced as Ext. B5 were also improperly received in evidence. Taking into account all these aspects I am of the view that the impugned order can be set aside and the matter remitted to the Court below for passing fresh orders or to expedite the trial of the suit itself and to come to a proper finding on the relevant issues. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below with directions as above. It is made clear that in order to maintain status quo, there will be a temporary injunction as allowed by the Court below operative until fresh orders are passed in the matter. The Court below will consider all the issues untrammeled by the observations contained in the impugned order. The revised order in the matter will be passed within a period of two months from the date on which a copy of the judgment is produced in the Court below.