Judgment ( 1. ) THE decision rendered in this appeal shall govern the disposal of other two appeals being M. A. No. 558/2002, Purna Gas Pvt. Ltd. v. M. P. Financial Corporation) and M. A. No. 1492/2000, (M. P. Financial Corporation v. Purna Cases Pvt. Ltd. as all these three appeals arise out of one suit only and involve almost identical issues. ( 2. ) IT is an appeal filed by the defendant of a suit filed by the respondent. This appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of Civil Procedure Code against an order granting temporary injunction by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 12. 4. 2001 in C. S. No. 11-A/2000 at the instance of plaintiff (respondent herein) under Order 39 Rules 1/2 of Civil Procedure Code in the form of mandatory directions. ( 3. ) PENDING this appeal, as it appears on 3. 10. 2002 with the consent of parties an agreed order came to be passed by this Court wherein it was ordered that a Commissioner be appointed to investigate the position of accounts in relation to the outstanding loan liabilities on the plaintiff. It was occasioned because if the case of the plaintiff was that they are not liable to pay any amount, the case of appellant (defendant) was that they have to recover the large money by way of outstanding from the plaintiff out of the loan given by them to the plaintiff. It is to resolve this issue, this Court was pleased to nominate the Commissioner with the consent to probe into accounts to be submitted by the parties to Commissioner or parties and submit his report. It was done and accordingly Commissioner has submitted his report on 16. 12. 2002. ( 4. ) THE parties have also submitted their written, objections to the report. It seems that appellant (defendant) has felt more aggrieved than that of the respondent (plaintiff ). ( 5. ) IN my view it is not for this Court at this stage and in this appeal to decide the legality, validity and correctness of the report so submitted nor it is otherwise for this Court to examine whose objections have to be upheld and to what extent. This being an appeal arising out of an injunction order. This Court has to confine itself to the legality of the order impugned and nothing more. This being an appeal arising out of an injunction order. This Court has to confine itself to the legality of the order impugned and nothing more. It is much more so when the suit out of which this appeal arises is still pending for final adjudication. ( 6. ) UNDER these circumstances and in this view of the matter the only directions that need to be given while finally deciding this appeal is to direct the Trial Court who is seized of the suit to proceed to decide the suit itself on merit and preferably within six months. While doing so the learned Trial Judge will decide the legality, validity and correctness of the Commissioners report dated 16. 12. 2002 in the light of the objections submitted by the parties. Needless to observe while deciding the validity and proprietary of the Commissioners report, the Trial Court will keep into consideration the terms and conditions of the loan agreement which determines the rights of the parties. So far as payment of amount is concerned. All other factual and legal objections, such as maintainability of suit, etc. will also be gone into by the Trial Court. ( 7. ) AS a result of aforesaid discussion which alone is sufficient, the appeal is thus disposed finally without going into the legality and validity of the impugned order as the same is not considered necessary in view of subsequent events which cropped up in appeal and which are mentioned above. The Registry is directed to send the original report of Commissioner dated 16. 12. 2002 to the Trial Court together with copies of objections submitted by appellant as also by the plaintiff (respondent) if filed by the respondent. Parties are also free to amend their objections if they so wish to raise in addition to what they have already filed in this Court before the Trial Court. C. C. within a week.