Samvatsar, J. - (1.)THIS is a revision application by the defendants.
(2.)THE facts of the case are briefly stated as follows: - -One Deoji son of Dhannaji Thakur filed a suit against the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge, Second Class, Kannod. As the claim was resisted, by the petitioners the trial of the case was proceeded with. The petitioners, who were defendants in the lower Court did not engage any pleader for conducting their case before the trial Court, but were represented by one Hiralal Dube who held an 'Am Mukhtyar Nama' from them.
On 19 -2 -1954 one Rajaramsingh was examined on commission at his residence by the plaintiff as his witness. The petitioners were absent at the time of his examination but their 'Mukhtyar Hiralal Dube was present. He wanted to cross -examine the witness but the Commissioner who was of the opinion that the recognised agent had no right to cross -examine his witness told him to suggest questions in order that he may put them to the witness and elicit his replies. The 'Mukhtyar' however did not agree and the result was that the commission was closed and the commission -warrant was returned to the Court by the Commissioner.

(3.)ON 20 -2 -1954 the defendants applied to the Court for issuing the commission again, contending that the Commissioner had wrongly refused to allow the 'Mukhtyar' to cross -examine the witness. The learned Civil Judge by his order upheld the view taken by the Commissioner but ordered the commission to be re -issued on defendants' depositing the commission fees. Aggrieved by this order the defendants have preferred this revision application.
;