MANOHARLAL ARORA Vs. ATMA PRAKASH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four revisions have been heard together as they all arise out of different orders passed in the same suit and as they relate to the same topic, namely, examination of witnesses on commission and payment of expenses of the Advocate for the plaintiff as 'expenses of commission and will be governed by this common order. The interconnection will be apparent from the enumeration of facts hereinbelow.

(2.) In Civil Revision No. 30 of 1979, the defendant No. 1 is the petitioner and this Revision is directed against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated 8-11979 wherein the petitioner has been directed to pay the costs of the plaintiff as 'expenses of commission. In Civil Revision No. 64 of 1979 the plaintiff is the petitioner and this Revision is directed against the self-same order dated 8-1-1979 allowing the application of defendant No. 1 to examine 13 witnesses out of 14 witnesses named therein on commission. This Revision is connected with Civil Revision No. 30 of 1979 being in the nature of a counter to the latter and arises out of the same order dated 8-1-1979. Civil Revision No. 136 of 1979 has been filed by the plaintiff against the order dated 19-12-1978 whereby the trial court allowed the application of defendant No. 2 to examine six of his witnesses on commission on the latter depositing some sums of money towards the expenses of the Commissioner as also of the plaintiff's Advocate. By the said order the trial court also dealt with a similar application by defendant No. 3 (a) who is a Parda Nasin lady and who is residing beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court, praying to be examined on commission and allowed the same on the applicant depositing certain amounts of money towards the remuneration and expenses of the Commissioner as also the expenses of the Advocate appearing for the plaintiff. Civil Revision No. 31 of 1979 has been filed by defendants 2, 3 (a) and 3 (b) against the order dated 5-1-1979 rejecting their applications to reduce the quantum of costs directed to be paid to the plaintiff and to meet the expenses of the Commissioner which had been earlier fixed by order dated 19-12-1978. The plaintiff in the suit is the petitioner in Civil Revisions 64 and 136 of 1979 and is the opposite party No. 1 in the other two Revisions, Defendant No. 1 is the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 30 of 1979 and opposite party No. 1 in Civil Revisions 64 and 136 of 1979 and opposite party No. 2 in Civil Revision No. 31 of 1979. Defendants 2, 3 (a) and 3 (b) are petitioners in Civil Revision No. 31 of 1979 and are respectively opposite parties 2, 3 and 4 in Civil Revisions 30, 64 and 136 of 1979.

(3.) The plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 81 of 1973 for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The partnership firm was operating in the name of Manoharlal and Company. On 12-5-73 when the suit was filed the plaintiff obtained an ex parte order of injunction and inventory by which the business of the firm was allowed to be run by defendants 1 and 2 at Calcutta and Cuttack respectively under orders of the court. A set of interrogatories were sought to be delivered to the plaintiff, but that was refused. Defendant No. 1 made an application on 3-1-79 for examination of some of his Witnesses named therein on commission. He named 14 witnesses in his application for examination on commission. By order dated 8-1-79 the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the prayer for examination of 13 witnesses on commission and rejected the prayer in respect of one witness, namely, Satrughna Sahu, He also directed defendant No. 1 to deposit Rs. 10,000/-to meet the expenses of the Commissioner as well as of the Advocate of the plaintiff for attending Commissioners' residence. The order dated 8-1-1979 is subject-matter of two revisions, namely, Civil Revisions Nos. 30 and 64 of 1979. After commencement of trial of the suit, two applications were filed, one by defendant No. 2 for examination of six witnesses residing beyond the ordinary original jurisdiction of the court on commission and the other filed by defendant No. 3 (a) for being examined on commission. By order dated 19-12-78 the trial court allowed both the applications and called upon them to pay some expenses to the plaintiff and this order is subject-matter of Civil Revision No. 136 of 1979. On 20-12-78 defendants 2, 3 (a) and 3 (b) made applications for scaling down the amount directed to be paid to the plaintiff as expenses on commission. By order dated 5-1-79 these petitions were rejected and the said order is subject-matter of Civil Revision No, 31 of 1979.