DUTCH OPTHALMIC RESEARCH CENTRE Vs. ULTRAMED PVT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 8-12-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in civil suit No.102/04 by which the application filed by the defendant under Order 26, Rule 5 and 15 CPC has been rejected.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that Dr. Anil Sharma filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages alleging therein that the petitioner appointed the plaintiff respondent No. 1 vide authority letter dated 23-4-1994 as its sole distributor for SAARC countries on the basis of an oral contract to sell the ophthalmic equipments. It was also alleged that such contract was for five years starting from 23-4-1994, however, since such imported ophthalmic equipments were defective and also the defendant petitioner terminated the contract, therefore, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 claimed for the damages. The suit was in progress and the defendant petitioner has also filed its written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint. Issues were framed on 17-5-2003 by the trial Court.

(3.) On 18-10-2004, the defendant petitioner filed an application under Order 26, Rules 5 and 15 CPC praying for examination of witness of defendant-Mr. Frank Ruseler on commission as the witness sought to be examined on commission is not within India (is in Holland) and also prayed to pay the expenses of commission in accordance with Rule 15 of Order 26.