Judgment :- 1. The petition is to revise an order dismissing the plaintiff's application for issuing a commission to the Supreme Court of London to examine a Director of the plaintiff-company and another gentleman, both residing in England, as witnesses in the cause. 2. O.16 R.19, Code of Civil Procedure provides that witnesses residing beyond 200 miles of the Court-house should not be compelled to attend Court in person for examination The normal process in such cases would therefore be a commission under 0.26 R.4. 3. Counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner relied on a ruling of this court in Sathi Amma v. United Commercial Bank (1958 KLT. 60), wherein it is observed: "(1) that in the case of a witness residing beyond the limit fixed under Order XVI Rule (19(b) C. P. C., a commission should issue as a matter of right unless the Court is satisfied that a party, is guilty, of delay or is merely abusing its authority to issue process, and (2) that it is not for the Court to decide whether the party will be benefitted thereby or not and that it is a matter entirely for the party" It was a case of a witness residing beyond 200 miles of the Court-house, but within India. Concerning witnesses residing outside India, a specific provision has been made in the C.P.C. in its 0.26 R.S. It reads: "Where any Court to which application is made for the issue of a commission for the examination of a person residing at any place not within India is satisfied that the evidence of such person is necessary, the Court may issue such commission or a letter of request." Being a particular provision in regard to witnesses residing outside India it must prevail over the general provision regarding witnesses residing beyond 200 miles of the Court-house. It then follows that no party can claim the issuance of a commission for examination of a witness in a place outside India, unless and until he has satisfied the court that the evidence of such witness is 'necessary', that is to say, is essential for the proper disposal of the case. 4. Nothing has been made out in the case to convince the Court of the necessity of the evidence of the witness residing in England. 4. Nothing has been made out in the case to convince the Court of the necessity of the evidence of the witness residing in England. Counsel for the plaintiff argued that, in the nature of the case, the plaintiff has to prove that he has earned the commission sued for. That the plaintiff has some issue to be proved in the cause does not, by itself, show that the examination of a particular witness is necessary in the matter. 0.26 R.S, Code of Civil Procedure, requires that the Court must be satisfied, before it is requested to issue a commission for examination of a witness residing outside India, that his evidence is necessary in the cause. As the condition has not been satisfied in this case the prayer has only to be rejected. I make it clear that if and when the plaintiff satisfies the court of trial that the evidence of such a witness is 'necessary', it is for the court to consider whether issue of a commission is not then called for. Suffice it to say such a case has not been made at the present stage and the dismissal of the prayer by the court below was therefore right. 5. Concerning the examination of a Director of the plaintiff-Company, the case has to be viewed differently. He is the representative of the plaintiff-company, & therefore virtually the plaintiff the cause. 0.16 R.19 CPC. relates to the examination of witnesses only; it does not apply to the examination of parties as such. A party seeking to discharge his own burden of proof is not in the same position as a witness called to give evidence in the cause. As has been observed in Akbar Ali Khan v. Herbert Francis (AIR. 1925 Patna 125) an order for the examination of a plaintiff on commission can only be made in exceptional circumstances. That without dislocation of his work in England he cannot attend the Court in India and that his going over to Cochin where the suit is pending would cause him a "heavy and incommensurate expense not taxable" do not appeal to me as proper grounds for directing his examination in England. It can be said of any party and of any witness that without dislocation of his work elsewhere he cannot be called to attend the court for examination. It can be said of any party and of any witness that without dislocation of his work elsewhere he cannot be called to attend the court for examination. It is the civic duty of a citizen that he should give primary consideration for the cause of justice, and give evidence in Court of all true facts which he can testify in connection with a pending dispute. Much more is the obligation on the part of the plaintiff who has come to Court for relief. 0.16 R.21 CPC. specifically provides that a plaintiff attending Court to give evidence on his own behalf may be permitted to include his travelling and other expenses as costs in the suit. In the circumstances no case has been made out for examination of the Director of the plaintiff-company in England. It is at his option to prove his case by examining himself with the necessary records or by other satisfactory evidence. The rejection of the prayer for the issuance of a commission for examination of the Director of the plaintiff-company in England was therefore perfectly justified. In the circumstances the Civil Revision Petition has no force. It is dismissed in limine. Dismissed. \