ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.02.2019, whereby an application under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, filed by the plaintiffs (respondents No.1 to 5 herein) had been allowed. 2. The facts in short are that the plaintiffs (respondent No.1 to 5) filed a suit for partition and permanent injunction against the petitioners alongwith an application for temporary injunction. Vide order dated 7.10.2016, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Balotra (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) has directed the parties to maintain status quo as an interim measure. 3. The plaintiffs thereafter filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code seeking appropriate orders qua the defendants alleging that they have flouted the above referred interim order dated 07.10.2016, passed by the Trial Court. 4. During the contempt proceedings, an application dated 29.01.2019 under Order XXXIX Rule 7 of the Code came to be filed by the plaintiffs requesting that a report of the Commissioner be obtained, as the defendants have raised construction and flouted the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court. 5. The Trial Court partly allowed the said application dated 29.01.2019 and appointed one Kaushal Kumar, advocate to be Commissioner. 6. It is noteworthy that while appointing Commissioner, the Trial Court has confined the Commissioner’s mandate only to obtain coloured photographs of all the sides of the disputed site. Pertinent it is to note that the Trial Court has issued special warning to the Commissioner, “not to record any evidence in his report”. 7. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of the order impugned dated 26.02.2019:- **7- vr% mi;qZDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ }kjk is'k fd;k x;k izkFkZuk i= varxZr vkns'k 39 fu;e 7 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk Lohdkj fd;k tkdj ;g vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og oknxzLr LFky dh pkjksa fn'kkvksa ls jaxhu QksVksxzkQl [khapdj nksuksa i{kdkjku@vf/koDrkx.k dh mifLFkfr esa oknxzLr LFky dh ekSds dh fjiksVZ rS;kj djsa rFkk bl ckr dk fo'ks"k :i ls /;ku j[ks fd og viuh fjiksVZ esa lk{; ds laca/k eas fdlh Hkh izdkj ds rF; dk vadu ugha djsaA vf/koDrk Jh dkS'ky dqekj iaokj dks deh'uj fu;qDr fd;k tkdj vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd og ianzg fnol ds Hkhrj laiw.kZ fjiksVZ rS;kj dj U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k djsaA mDr deh'uj dk O;; izkFkhZx.k ogu djsaxsA** 8. Dr. Dr. Sachin Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner impugning the order dated 26.02.2019, passed by the Trial Court contended that plaintiffs had filed the application seeking appointment of the Commissioner only with a view to collect evidence and that the Trial Court was not justified in appointing Commissioner as the same would further the cause of plaintiff in proving his allegations. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. 10. It is undisputed that the plaintiffs’ aforesaid application dated 29.01.2019 came to be filed in contempt proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code and that vide order impugned, the Trial Court has appointed the Commissioner only for the purposes of taking photographs of the disputed site from all the four sides. While appointing the Commissioner, the Court has clearly stipulated that the Commissioner is not supposed to record any other evidence except the photographs. 11. In considered opinion of this Court in a contempt proceedings, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in obtaining photographs of the disputed site, with a view to ascertain the status as it existed on date of appointing Commissioner i.e. 26.02.2019. 12. The order of collecting photograph will unquestionably facilitate the Court to determine as to whether the contempt has been committed or not. Obtaining the report about exact situation on a date does not fall within the ambit of collecting evidence for plaintiffs, particularly because the contempt jurisdiction is after all between the contemnors and the Court. 13. As a matter of fact, the order impugned will further the cause of justice, so as to decide the contempt proceedings effectually. The petitioners in any case cannot be heard to raise any grievance, qua such innocuous order. 14. That being the position, I do not find any error or infirmity in the order dated 26.02.2019, passed by the Trial Court. 15. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Petition No.3500/2019 also stands disposed of.