ORDER S.N. Singh, J. - This revision petition is directed against an order of the Civil Judge, Deoria, directing the Defendant to deposit Rs. 1000/- as costs of the Plaintiff which might be spent by the Plaintiff at Bombay for preparing his case there. It appears that Defendant Bhagwati Prasad Khetan applied for the issuance of commission for recording the evidence of his witnesses as well as of his. In that application it was prayed that five witnesses be examined at Bombay. An objection was taken by the Plaintiffs and it was alleged that the application was not a bonafide one. The lower court came to the conclusion that the application was not a bonafide one and was not inclined to accept this prayer but it appears that it showed indulgence to the Defendant and after some hesitation allowed the application subject to the payment of Rs. 1000/- as costs as stated above. 2. The Defendant has come up in revision against this order. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Civil judge had no jurisdiction to pass this type of order awarding costs to the Plaintiff under Order 26, Rule 15 Code of Civil Procedure. It was submitted that under Order 26 Rule 15 CPC the Civil Judge could have only directed the amount of expenses of the commission to be deposited within a time to be fixed by that court. He had no jurisdiction to direct the Defendant to deposit the expenses of the Plaintiffs for the preparation of their case. Learned Counsel supported this submission of his by relying on the following cases: (1) The The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., with its office at Jamshedpur, Calcutta Vs. S. Kader Ibrahim Rowther, AIR 1955 Mad 654 . (2) Maremanda Seshamma Vs. Jooluri Narasimha Rao and Others, AIR 1963 AP 167 . (3) Mst. Anoora Vs. Babu Sagarmal and Another, AIR 1963 Patna 213 and (4) Kanji Karsondas and Others Vs. Nathubhai Khimji, AIR 1953 Bom 390 . As against this submission the learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the court had ample jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be revised u/s 151 Code of Civil Procedure. (3) Mst. Anoora Vs. Babu Sagarmal and Another, AIR 1963 Patna 213 and (4) Kanji Karsondas and Others Vs. Nathubhai Khimji, AIR 1953 Bom 390 . As against this submission the learned Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the court had ample jurisdiction to pass the order sought to be revised u/s 151 Code of Civil Procedure. In support of his submission the learned Counsel for the opposite parties relied on the following cases: (1) Jiwibai v. Laxmichand Abasbhai AIR 1955 Raj 32 , (2) Babu Gulab Rai Ghutghutia v. Mahendra Nath Sreemani AIR 1935 Pat 220 and (3) Kumar Sarat Kumar, Ray Vs. Ram Chandra Chatterjee, AIR 1922 Cal 42 . 3. Before this Court learned Counsel for the opposite parties suggested to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he should agree to the examination of the Defendant Sri Khetan in court and the evidence of other witnesses might be recorded by serving interrogatories and cross-interrogatories at Bombay but the Applicant was not agreeable to this suggestion. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Defendant should also be examined at Bombay and that no costs should be ordered to be paid by the Defendant for the Plaintiff. 4. I have considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have looked into the various authorities cited by them. I am satisfied that the lower court is right when it has observed that this application is not a bonafide one and on the acceptance of this finding of the lower court it is clear that what the lower court has done is mere an indulgence to the Defendant. On the authorities cited before me it is clear to me that under Order 26 Rule 15 CPC a court has jurisdiction only to pass an order for the necessary expenses of the commission only. It could not order for the expenses of the opposite parties. If the case was covered by Order 26 CPC and the party applying for commission could under legal right get the commission issued the court would have no jurisdiction to direct that party to pay the expenses of the opposite parties. It could not order for the expenses of the opposite parties. If the case was covered by Order 26 CPC and the party applying for commission could under legal right get the commission issued the court would have no jurisdiction to direct that party to pay the expenses of the opposite parties. But if the party concerned asked the court to issue a commission for the examination of the party itself which generally speaking that the party cannot ask, the court in my opinion has ample jurisdiction to put that party to terms u/s 151 CPC and direct him to pay the expenses of the opposite party which the opposite party might have to incur. The case cited by the Petitioner excepting the case of the The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., with its office at Jamshedpur, Calcutta Vs. S. Kader Ibrahim Rowther, AIR 1955 Mad 654 deal with Order 26 Rule 15 CPC only. The case of Mst. Anoora Vs. Babu Sagarmal and Another, AIR 1963 Patna 213 one of the decisions relied by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has approved the decision of the Rajasthan High Court viz. Jiwibai v. Laxmichand Abasbhai AIR 1955 Raj 32 and it also held that in appropriate cases Section 151 CPC can be utilised. The cases cited by the opposite parties do support their contention and I am in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the case of Jiwibai v. Laxmichand Abasbhai (supra) and I am in respectful disagreement with the view expressed in the case of the The Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., with its office at Jamshedpur, Calcutta Vs. S. Kader Ibrahim Rowther, AIR 1955 Mad 654 so far as the applicability of Section 151 CPC is concerned. On the finding recorded by thE court below the order passed by that court cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly this revision lacks force and is hereby dismissed with costs.