KARNATAKA TRADING COY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of admission, the respondents are notified. Accordingly they have put in appearance through a counsel. Hence the matter is finally heard.

(2.) This CRP is directed against the order dt 3 4 1981 passed "by the learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, rejecting an application IA II filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Or. 26, Rr. 2 and 4 read with Or. 16, R 19 and S. 151 of CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code').

(3.) According to the petitioner-plaintiff, it is necessary to examine a witness by name Jeevanram, son of Manoharlal partner of Suresh Dhall and General Mills, Hissar Road, Mehan, Haryana State, in order to establish his title to the goods in question, which is challenged by the respondents-defendants. The further case of the petitioner is that since Jeevanram son of Manoharlal is residing about 2,500 kms away from the place where the Court is situated, as such he is entitled fora commission. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the capital city of Haryana State and the City of Bangalore where the Small Causes Court is situated are connected by air, therefore,, under the proviso to Cl. (b) of R. 19 of Or. 16 of the Code, he may be paid air fare, so that the witness may come by air to give evidence in the case. It is also further stated that the unwillingness of a witness to go over to Bangalore to give evidence is not a valid reason for granting commission.