THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6783 of 2004. Krishna Kumar son of Shri Goverdhan Lal. VERSUS The Additional District Judge (F.T.). Sikar & Others Date Of Order ::: 10/04/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kumar Jain J. Mr. R.K. Mathur, Counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. Raunak Singhvi, Counsel for the respondent nos.2,3 & 4 None present for the other respondents By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff/petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of the contract in the trial Court, wherein the plaintiff filed an application (annexure-1) to appoint a Commissioner for the examination of three witnesses namely; Advocate Shri Shashidhar, Notary Public Shri C.M. Arora and other attesting witness Rashmi Mandelia, who are residing at Bombay. The application was contested by the defendant no.5 Ramavtar Modi. The trial Court vide its order dated 29.07.2004 rejected the said application. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition, filed on behalf of the plaintiff. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that all the above-named three witnesses are necessary witnesses in the present case, as the present suit is for specific performance of the contract. The advocate Shri Shashidhar, and Rashmi Mandelia, are attesting witnesses to the contract and Shri C.M. Arora is Notary Public, who attested the contract. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that all the three witnesses are residing at Bombay and he is ready to bear all the expenses for the Commissioner, plaintiff, defendant and their respect advocates to travel, either by air transport or by train, and further for their stay and food etc., at Bombay. He also contended that the trial Court committed an illegality in rejecting the application, which ought to have been allowed looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned counsel for the respondents no.2 to 4 has opposed the writ petition and contended that the trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by the plaintiff, as it will be very expensive for the plaintiff himself to get the above-named three witnesses examined at Bombay by appointing a Commissioner. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 29.07.2004 and application as well as reply thereof filed with the writ petition, as Annexure 1 and 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement, where the attesting witnesses as well as notary public, who attested the agreement, are essential witnesses, therefore, their examination on oath is necessary in the case. Although, it will be very expensive for the plaintiff to get them examined by appointing and sending a Commissioner at Bombay, but the plaintiff is ready to bear all the expenses of air transport/railway, boarding and lodging of Commissioner as well as parties and their respective advocates. In these circumstances, I think it fit and proper to allow this writ petition, and to direct the trial court to appoint a Commissioner for examination of the above named three witnesses at Bombay. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.07.2004 passed by the trial court is set aside. The application filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the plaintiff is permitted to examine Shashidhar, C.M. Arora and Rashmi Mandelia on oath before the Commissioner. The trial Court is directed to appoint one Commissioner to go at Bombay and record the statements of all three witnesses, named above. It will be open for the parties and their respective advocates to go along with the Commissioner, and the entire expenses of all the persons will be borne by the plaintiff. The costs is made easy. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. ashok/