IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.41 of 2010 Date of decision : August 11, 2010 Saneharu Devi …Petitioner. Versus Tara Chand …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral) This petition is directed against the order dated 17th February, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karsog, whereby the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff, under Order 26 Rules 1 & 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for examining her on commission was dismissed. 2. After the issues were framed on 13th October, 2009, the matter was ordered to be listed for evidence of the plaintiff on 19th December, 2009. On the said date, a prayer was made on behalf of the plaintiff that she was unwell, suffering from fever and, therefore, she could not appear. On this ground adjournment was granted and the matter was adjourned to 17th February, 2010. On this date an application was filed in which it was stated that the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. …2… plaintiff is an old lady of 70 years and remained ill and is unable to come to Karsog from her village, which is at a distance of 56 kms. No document in support of this application was filed. The only document in support of the application is the affidavit of the son of the plaintiff, Chander Mani. On the previous two occasions, i.e. on the date of framing issues and on 19th December, 2009 when the case was actually listed for evidence, no such plea was raised. The leaned trial Court was justified in dismissing the application. No interference is called for with the order of the learned trial Court. Hence, the petition is dismissed. No costs. August 11, 2010(sd) ( Deepak Gupta ), J