KISSINLAL KANKARIA Vs. PURSHOTTAMDAS HALWASIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner, Sm. Madan Mohini Debi, who is a defendant in Suit No. 1739 of 1940 has asked that she may be examined on commission in view of the fact that she is a pardanashin lady. The petitioner bases her application on Section 132 (1), Civil P.C, which is in the following terms: Women who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public shall be exempt from personal appearance in Court.

(2.) She also relies on Ordder 26, Rule 1 of the Code which is to this effect: Any Court may in any suit issue, a commission for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction who is exempted under this Code from attending the Court or who is from sickness or infirmity unable to attend it.

(3.) On behalf of the opposite party it is urged that Order 26, Rule 1 of the Code merely confers a discretion on the Court as regards the issue of a commission in a case such as this, and that this discretion should not be exercised in view of the fact that the applicant does not observe strict pardah that she often goes out in public and even attends Court. In her affidavit in reply the petitioner has stated that it is not correct to say that she does not observe pardah or that she goes out in public Further she maintains that, when it is necessary for her to go to the Court premises for the purpose of signing documents and transacting similar business, she does not leave her private car. On the affidavits, I am of opinion that it must be held that the petitioner is in fact a pardanashin lady, and the only question which arises for consideration is whether, in these circumstances, she should be regarded as exempt from attendance in Courts and should be examined on commission.