(c.G.) K. WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Q 1 . PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS As stated above in the cause title. WI mqi$ W. .v N.g r .gD$-&. .[9.gi 200 ,anéstm (W) mermaaim - aananésim {£2 \ 5hri A.K. Pmsad, counsel By the insfan‘r pe‘ri’rion order dated 20*h Sep‘rember Au'rhor-ify, Ambikapur in RC learned Ren‘r Con'rr-oiling Au‘i’ho behalf of fhe responden‘l' herein To examine him on commission as a wh‘ness. I have heard 5hri A pe‘ri'lioners, ‘on admission. Brief ‘facis leading ”lo responden‘r herein has filed an for evic'rion of fhe premises in a fenan‘r of respondenf herein necessi'ty for fhe purpose of r governmenf service. The said pefifioners herein. An applica' was fikd on behalf of fhe examined on commission being was also resis‘red by fhe pe’r filing of This wrif pefi’rion are Thaf applicai’ion under fhe Rent Con'l'rol Acf occupafion of The pe'l'iTioners herein as on The ground of bonafide and personal asidence affer his refiremen‘r from fhe applicafion has'been'resisfed by fhe “ion under Order 26 Rule 1 of fhe C.P.C. ‘espondenf herein To aliow him To be anold and sick person. ThaT applicaTion ‘Tioners herein. However, The learned RenT ConTrolling AuThoriTy has allowed The applicaTion vide impugned order. Evan-N11% mat “mama-mm mamas: for The pefifioners. fhe pe‘ri‘rioners hare challenged The 2005 passed by fhe Ren'r Con-rrolllng C. No.5/B-121/2001—O2 whereby lhe r-h‘y has allowed +he applica’rion filed on K. Prasad, learned counsel for fhe SP/FS/2005 - 20.000 ‘ \7 WWWW Frmqi$ . . .’ mzoo arré>31qai5(m) E’Wmwma _& » wWsnéal The argumen'r adVcmced k is fhaf since fhe respondent he df The Rem’ Confroliing Au'rhori‘ no? compe‘renf To pass “rhe orde Second ground raised by learnet zen filed in suppor’r of fhe application. ‘ cer‘rikficofe and offidovi‘r have b Having heard learned c perused 'i'he impugned order am shows ’rha‘r ih‘e responden'r here fhe learned Ren‘t ConTroiiing } Rule 1 of Order 25 of 'l’he C.P.C. under Rule 4 of Order 26 of C.l en‘rifled +0 pass The order for on commission which envisages 1' “(1) Any Cour‘r may in any examinofion on inferroga‘fories y learned counsel for fhe pe‘l’i‘rioners rein is residing ou‘r of The jurisdiction ry, The Renl’ Confrolling Au'ihorify was r under Order 26 Rule 1 of The C.P.C. l counsel for The pe’rifioners is fhaf no ounsel for fhe pefifioners, I have :l ’rhe pe‘rifion. Perusal of The records in is residing ouT of The jurisdicfion of lufhori‘l‘y, Therefore, The provision of is noT applicable in This case. However, ’.C. The RenT ConTrolling AuThor-iTy was lexamin’oTion of The respondenT herein- haT: suiT issue o commission (for The Jr oTherwi‘se’of:-) (a) any person residenT beyond The local limiTs of iTs ‘ jurisdicTion; T . (b) any perSOn who is‘abouT To leave such limiTs before The examined in CourT; and daTe on which he i v required To be examined (c) [any person in The ervice of The GovernmenT] Who cannoT in The opinion of, e CourT, aTTend wiThouT deTrimenT To The public service: em ' f l SP/FS/2005-2o,000 mmmmst _3_ ‘ mmiiwm $Wm€a , r [Providedr fha‘l’ where under Ruk 19 of Order 16 a ‘ person canno‘r be orcered 1’0 affend fhe Cour'r m person, a commission shall be issued for his examina‘rion if his evidence is considered necessary in The inferesfs of jusfice: Provided fur‘rher fhu‘r a commission for exomina‘rion of such person on inferrogm‘ories shali noT be issued unless ‘lhe Courf, for recisons to be recorded, 'rhinks if necessary so fo do.‘] As for as filing of fhe ‘medical cerfifico‘le wherey .‘rhe responden‘l' herein has expressed Jhis difficul‘ly fo come ‘lo The Cour'l’, perusal of Annexure-P/1 reveal Tho’r medical cerl’ifica'ie of The regisfered medical pracfifioner w s filed before fhe Ren'lCon‘rrolling Au‘lhori‘ry, 'lherefore, argumenf o learned counsel for The peTiTioners 'I'ha‘r no medical cerfifica'fe is fil d is devoid of any merit Learned Au’rhori’ry has observed Tha’r he is safisfie‘d ‘rhaf the a'pplicafion is bonafide and The evidence of res ondenf herein is necessary in order ‘lo decide “rhe issue and evidence “rhe responden'f herein is ma‘lerial. There are reasonable grounds e isf for "lhe respondenf herein for \ no? coming ‘l‘o “the Court l‘r ha been men'lioned fha‘l even Though respondenfs herein is residing ou of The jurisdicfion of The CourT, buT looking To The illness and old age of The respondenT herein iT is - necessary ThaT The respondenT herein should be examined on commission as per The provisions of Order 26 Rule 4 (1) (a) of The C.P.C.. Therefore, in view of The a ove facTs, I do noT find any qround b XI-HC-78 m mqi$ mzoo mam (WE) mmwma _A’{’_ +0 inferfere wifh “rhe impugned jurisdiction under Ar’ricie 227 of most The pe‘mioner-s Herein are e} The places where The respondem anistwéaim manéemqiaa mam#ii€@m ‘ ' aiwmst order by exercising exfraordinary 1'he Consfifu'rion of India. A’r The wifled for 1he Traveling expenses +0 herein is ‘ro be examined and for ThaT purpose, The Courjf has already fixed The daTe for arriving aT The es’rima'red expenses. In View of “the above, I pem’ion, same is liable‘fo be dism cos'rs. Consequenfly, M.(W.)P. No.1 s’mnd disposed of. Sd/— L.C.Bhadoo Judge Bar-ye :io naf find any subs'rance in This ssed and iT is hereby dismissed. No i093/2005 and LA. No.8873/2005