Dave, J. - (1.) THIS is an application in revision by the defendant against the order of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur, dated the 6th April, 1957.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to it are that the plaintiff's (opposite parties) filed a suit against the defendant petitioner under sec. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. During the pendency of the suit the defendant presented an application on 3rd April, 1957, requesting the court to issue, a commission under 0. 26 C. P. C. for examining certain witnesses residing at Surat, which is more than 200 miles distant from the place where the court is situated. This application was disposed of by the trial court on 6th April, 1957. THE learned judge ordered commission to be issued for examination of witnesses at Surat and the District Judge, Surat was requested to appoint a commissioner for the purpose. THE petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 60/- for commission expenses. He was further directed to pay the expenses of the plaintiff's counsel, i. e. First Class railway fare both ways from Jodhpur to Surat and Rs. 25/- per day. It is the validity of the last part of this order which is challenged. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court has committed a material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in ordering the defendant to pay the expenses of the plaintiff's counsel. It is contended that 0. 26 C. P. C. does not cantemplate that the party requesting the court to issue a commission should be directed to pay the expenses of the opposite party. In support of his argument learned counsel has referred to Saboora Bivi Ammal vs. Julaika Bivi Ammal (l ). It was observed in that case that the phrase "expenses of the commission" in ordinary parlance would mean only what the commissioner has to spend for summoning witnesses and for other incidental expenses relating to the examination of the witnesses before him. No authority has bean placed before me where the words have been construed in such wide terms i. e. to include the expenses of the opposite party. An earlier decision of a learned Single Judge of the same High Court in Abdurahim Settu vs. Muhammad Kasem Setti (2) was dissented from in that case. I respectfully agree with the observation made by the learned Judge. 0. 26, r. 15 C. P. C. only permits the court (ordering commission to issue) to direct a party that it should deposit such sum as it thinks reasonable for the expenses of the commission within a time to be fixed by the court. The words "expenses of the commission to be" do not certainly include the expenses which may be incurred by the opposite party. This view also gets support from Rule 63 of the General Rules (Civil), 1952, which have been framed by this Court. The said Rules runs as follows - " (1) Whenever a commission is issued to any court, the court issuing the same shall require the party applying for issue to pay into court before issue. (a) Where such witness is to be examined by a Court the travelling and other expenses likely to be incurred by the witness. (b) In other cases such additional sum also as it may consider necessary for the employment of a legal practitioner by the court to which the commission is issued. (2) The court issuing the commission may require the party concerned to deposit such further amount as the court to which the commission is sent may lawfully require. " It is abundantly clear that this Rule does not contemplate the deposit of the expenses of the opposite party. Shri Mansukhram, plaintiff has appeared in person and he has not been able to point out any authority to the contrary to justify the order of the trial court. The revision application is therefore allowed and the order of the learned District Judge directing the defendant to pay the expenses of the plaintiffs' counsel is set aside. The parties will bear their own costs. .;