M.A.H. FAROOK Vs. KALIKRISHNA DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, a Madathipathi, filed the suit against the petitioner and three others in the District Munsif's Court, Ramanathapuram for the recovery of Rs. 750 from all the four defendants as the estimated cost of the Samprokshanam to be performed in Sri Ramanathasveami Temple at Rameswaram and for a permanent injunction restraining the first defendant, the Executive Officer of the Temple, from allowing non -Hindus to enter the Temple beyond the third prakaram. The allegation in the plaint is that the first defendant and the other defendants took the petitioner, the fourth defendant, a Muslim, upto the gate of the sanctum sanctorum of the Temple on 2nd May, 1970, honoured him by a parivattam and gave him vibhuthi and kunkumam holy Ganges water, and kodi theertham and kunkumam and that the petitioner threw the vibhuthi and kunkumam with contempt, used the Ganges water to rinse his hands and passed on the kodi theertham to his Personal Assistant and by these acts desecrated the Temple and necessitated Samprokshanam. The petitioner admitted that he was honoured with parivattam and taken by the first defendant upto the Maha Mantapam of the Temple and given prasadams. He has denied that he threw away the vibhuthi and kunkumam and used the Ganges water for rinsing his hands, and has stated that he accepted the prasadams given to him with due respect and reverence and passed them on to his confidential Assistant. He has pleaded in the written statement that the Government of Tamil Nadu has passed a Government Order lifting the prohibition against non -Hindus entering a Hindu Temple.

(2.) THE petitioner, who is at present the Chief Minister of Pondicherry, filed the application, out of which this civil revision petition has arisen, under Section 133 and Order 26, Rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for being examined on commission at his residence at Pondicherry on 15th December, 1972 before his intended departure on 16th December, 1972 to a foreign country. He averred in the affidavit that Pondicherry is far away from the territorial jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court, Ramanathapuram, that on account of pressure of work as Chief Minister of the State he was unable to attend the Court at Ramanathapuram for giving evidence and that it was just and necessary that he should be examined on commission. The respondent opposed the petition, contending that in these days of fast travel, no part of the country could be said to be far away from the jurisdiction of the lower Court, He stated in his counter -affidavit that parties to the suit could not claim to be examined on commission. Regarding the alleged inability of the petitioner to attend the Court at Ramanathapuram on account of pressure of work, he contended that when the petitioner could go to foreign country he could very well come to the Court at Ramanathapuram for giving evidence. He further contended that it would not be possible for the Court to appreciate the petitioner's evidence in the proper perspective if he was not examined in Court. He apprehended danger to the person of himself and that of his advocate from certain political elements in Pondicherry in the event of their visiting Pondicherry in connection with the examination of the petitioner on commission.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the distance between Pondicherry and Ramanathapuram is over 200 miles. It is only in the case of witnesses, Order 16, Rule 19(b) says :