MAHALAXMI TENT FACTORY JODHPUR Vs. KAMLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petition relate to the validity of the amendments which have been made in Orders XVIII and XXVI of the Code of C. P. , hereinafter referred to as "the Code", by notification No. 3/s. R. O. S. O. 119 dated November 29, 1973, published in the State Gazette, extraordinary, dated December 1, 1973. The learned counsel for the petitioners has advanced his arguments in all these petitions together, and I shall dispose them of by a common judgement as suggested by him.

(2.) IT has been argued by the learned counsel that rule 5 of Order XVIII of the Code forms a part of the body of the Code, and that the new rule 19 of that order, which has been inserted by the aforesaid notification, is invalid as it is inconsistent with that rule. The argument has been based on the provisions of sec. 128 (1 ).

(3.) IT has next been argued that the impugned orders of the trial court, for the examination of witnesses on commission, are illegal because it was not permissible for it, under the newly added rule 4a of Order XXVI, to order the issue of commission for the recording of the statements of those witnesses who were not residing within the local limits of its jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, in this connection, invited my attention only to the trial Court's order in S. B. Civil Revision No. 99 of 1974 as, according to him the other orders are similar and are not based on any other consideration. The point, it appears, engaged the attention of the trial court, and it has rightly observed that it was permissible for it to issue the commission in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (1) of R. 4 of O XXVI. That sub-rule clearly provides that any court may in any suit issue a commission for the examination of any person residing beyond the local limits of its jurisdiction. The trial court's order for the recording of the statements of the non resident witnesses is therefore quite unexceptionable.