JUDGMENT Panckridge, J. - This is an application on behalf of the Defendant Provat Chandra Ghosh, and concerns the costs occasioned by an order made for the examination of one of the Defendants, Henry George Gregson, upon commission. The suit is a suit in tort and the Defendants are sued as joint tort-feasors. On the 21st February, 1933, the Defendant Gregson and the Defendant Messrs. Reed Ward & Co., applied for the Defendant Gregson's examination upon commission. An order was made for such examination, and as regards costs the direction was that: The costs of and incidental to the application including the fee to counsel will be costs in the cause. 2. No direction was given as to the costs of the commission which were not dealt with, although in the summons an order was asked for--that the costs of and incidental to the application and the costs of the examination, whether de bene esse or upon commission, be costs in the cause. 3. At a later stage the present applicant, the Defendant Provat Chandra Ghosh, applied for an order that the Plaintiffs should be directed to furnish security for costs to the extent of Rs. 1000. An order for such security was made, and it was directed that in default thereof the suit would stand dismissed with costs as against Provat Chandra Ghosh. 4. That order was made on the 24th of July, 1934. Apparently, the time for furnishing the security was extended on at least one occasion, but an application for further extension was dismissed by me on the 14th November, 1934. As a result the default provision in the order became operative, and the suit stood dismissed with costs as against the Defendant Provat Chandra Ghosh. When Provat Chandra Ghosh proceeded to have his bill of costs taxed, the Taxing Officer felt some difficulty as to who was liable for the costs of the commission for the examination of the Defendant Gregson. 5. The first prayer in the present summons is that the Defendant Provat Chandra Ghosh's costs of and incidental to the commission be taxed and paid by the Defendants Henry George Gregson and Messrs. Reed Ward & Co., without prejudice to the question as to how such costs are ultimately to be borre. 6. Mr. 5. The first prayer in the present summons is that the Defendant Provat Chandra Ghosh's costs of and incidental to the commission be taxed and paid by the Defendants Henry George Gregson and Messrs. Reed Ward & Co., without prejudice to the question as to how such costs are ultimately to be borre. 6. Mr. Bose has not pressed that part of the application, and in my opinion he could not have done so with any chance of success, because under the orders as they now stand there is nothing which can possibly be regarded as an order that the Defendants Gregson and Reed Ward & Co., should pay any of the other Defendants' costs. There is however an alternative prayer that what I may call the commission costs of Provat Chandra Ghosh be taxed as against and be paid by the Plaintiff Company. As I have already pointed out, the order for the issue of a commission made no explicit provision for the costs of the commission, and the question, therefore, is whether, in these circumstances, the order that the suit be dismissed with costs as against Provat Chandra Ghosh means that in addition to the other costs of the suit the Plaintiffs should also pay Provat Chandra Ghosh's costs of the commission. All parties before me have referred to the circumstances in which the commission was granted and to the conduct of the various parties with regard to it. I am of opinion that those are matters which I am precluded from investigating, and all that I can do is to censtrue the orders as they stand. 7. Mr. Isaacs has referred me to page 1460 of the Annual Practice, 1936, which deals with Or. 65, r. 23 of the Rules and Orders of the Supreme Court. There it is stated:-- The party making a successful motion is entitled to his costs as costs in the cause, but the party op. posing is not. 8. The paragraph where that proposition is set out is entitled " Rules where order is silent as to costs." In my experience, there is no similar rule or practice in this Court. There is no express direction on the point, but the language of Chap. posing is not. 8. The paragraph where that proposition is set out is entitled " Rules where order is silent as to costs." In my experience, there is no similar rule or practice in this Court. There is no express direction on the point, but the language of Chap. XX, r. 13 of the Rules and Orders of the Original Side seems rather to suggest that the draftsman of that rule, at any rate, was of opinion that generally speaking, if no order is made as to costs, the burden lies where it falls. 9. Having regard to the terms of the summons which embodied the application for a commission and the order then made, I think it is in accordance with the practice of this Court to hold that the costs of the commission must be borne by the several parties. If this is so, the costs which the Plaintiff Company was ordered to pay by Cunliffe, J., must be held to be the general costs of the suit, exclusive of the costs of the commission. In these circumstances, the present application must be dismissed with costs. 10. With regard to the costs of the commission of Messrs. Reed Ward and Co. and Mr. Gregson, I consider they are not directly in issue in this application, because in no circumstances, as the order stands, could there be any claim as against them on behalf of the applicant. How far the judgment I have just delivered may be used as an authority against any claim which may eventually be made by them is another matter, but I wish to make it clear that my judgment is only concerned with the liability of the Plaintiffs to the Defendant Provat Chandra Ghosh as to the costs of the commission.