ORDER 1. This revision arises from a claim for Rs. 21,000 lodged before the Motor Vehicles Tribunal, Gwalior, under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. A car, No. BMU 9723, struck against Nathuram on 3 November 1962. He succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. There are six non-applicants, non-applicant 3 is an insurance company. The other five non-applicants are the revision-petitioners. They applied to the tribunal to issue a commission for the examination of the revision-petitioners 1, 2 and 3 and also one Mansukhlal. A. question arose whether the tribunal had any power to issue a commission for the examination of witnesses. Another question was whether it was right to issue a commission for the examination at Bombay of the revision petitioners 1, 2, and 3, being themselves parties before the tribunal (there, they are numbered as 1, 5, and 6), particularly when the applicants, by reason of their poverty, would not be able to send their counsel for cross-examination of those witnesses or to engage a fresh counsel at Bombay. The tribunal answered the first question in the negative. It, however, observed that if it had power to issue a commission, it would do so in exercise of its discretion although the witnesses to be examined are parties to the petition. In its opinion, the applicants' poverty was no impediment to the issuance of a commission. 2. In regard to the applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, powers of Claims Tribunal are defined in section 110-C of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder. The first sub-section lays down that the Claims Tribunal may follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit but this is subject to any rules that may be made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) enacts that the Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court (1) for the purpose (a) of taking evidence on oath, (b) of enforcing the attendance of witnesses, and (c) of compelling discovery and production of documents and material objects; and (1) for such other purposes as may be prescribed. 3. Rule 14 of the M. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1959, reads thus:- "14. 3. Rule 14 of the M. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1959, reads thus:- "14. Save as otherwise expressly provided in the Act of these rules the following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, namely, those contained in Order V, rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 20; Order IX; Order XIII, rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, rules 2 to 21; Order XVII; and Order XXIII, rules 1 to 3, shall apply to proceedings before Claims Tribunal, in so far as they may be applicable thereto: Provided that— (a) for the purpose of facilitating the application of the said provisions the Claims Tribunal may construe them with such alterations not affecting the substance as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before it; (b) the Claims Tribunal may, for sufficient reasons, proceed otherwise than in accordance with the said provisions, if it is satisfied that the interest of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced." 4. From these provisions, the following position conspicuously emerges. The Claims Tribunal has the powers of a civil Court for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and Order 16, Rules 2 to 21, of the Code of Civil Procedure, have been made applicable. Now, a person residing beyond the territorial limits of the tribunal and 200 miles beyond the precincts other tribunal cannot be compelled by it to personally appear as a witness. This necessarily implies that if a person, whose personal appearance before the tribunal cannot be compelled by virtue of the provisions contained in Order 16, is to be examined as a witness, a commission must necessarily be issued for the purpose. The first proviso to Rule 14 (supra) gives wide discretion to construe the provisions of Rule 14 with such alteration as may be necessary or proper to adapt them to the matter before the tribunal but not so as to effect the substance. 5. The second proviso confers on the tribunal still wider powers by giving it a free hand to proceed otherwise than in accordance with the provisions enumerated in the main part of Rule 14. The limitations are only two: (1) There must be sufficient reasons for so proceeding; and (2) interests of the parties must not thereby be prejudiced. 5. The second proviso confers on the tribunal still wider powers by giving it a free hand to proceed otherwise than in accordance with the provisions enumerated in the main part of Rule 14. The limitations are only two: (1) There must be sufficient reasons for so proceeding; and (2) interests of the parties must not thereby be prejudiced. The combined effect of all the provisions contained in section 110-C and Rule 14 and its provisions is that the Tribunal must, as far as possible, follow the procedure laid down in the Rules and Orders enumerated in the main Rule, but it has also the power to deviate from them for sufficient reason and subject to the condition that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced, As a corollary of these deductions, although a party cannot claim as of right that a commission should be issued for the examination of a witness, yet, the tribunal is clothed with the power and discretion to issue such commission but such power and discretion are not unfettered. The tribunal must be satisfied that there are sufficient reasons and that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced. Thus, if in a given case, the tribunal is of the opinion that there are sufficient reasons for examining a person as a witness but his appearance before the tribunal cannot be compelled, it has the power and authority to issue a commission for his examination. Before making such an order, the tribunal must be satisfied that the interests of the parties will not thereby be prejudiced, for instance, if the tribunal finds that a party seeks issuance of a commission for delaying or protracting the proceeding A party, while applying for issuance of a commission, must place before the tribunal sufficient reasons to persuade it to allow the application. It must disclose the nature and substance of the evidence which would be coming for from the witness; it should also state the reasons why the witness cannot appear before the tribunal in person; and, further, it must also satisfy the tribunal that the interests of the other party will not thereby be prejudiced. 6. Applying those provisions to the present case, what I find is that three of the four witnesses, who are sought to be examined on commission, are themselves parties to the proceedings. 6. Applying those provisions to the present case, what I find is that three of the four witnesses, who are sought to be examined on commission, are themselves parties to the proceedings. They are Balubhai, Manilal and Dattu Panduranis (revision-petitioners 1, 2, and 3). No reason at all is shown in the application dated 11 January 1965, except that they reside beyond the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction and that they reside beyond 200 miles from the tribunal's precincts. This by itself cannot be sufficient cause. The applicants in their reply, while opposing issuance of commission, said that applicant 1 is a roar lady and it is almost impossible for her to engage a counsel to cross-examine them if they are examined at Bombay. Applicants 2, 3 and 4 are her minor children. This consideration cannot be rejected outright. It would have been a different matter if issuance of a commission could be demanded as of right. This is not to say that poverty of the opposite party is by itself sufficient to reject an application for issuance of a commission. What I emphasize is that no sufficient reasons are made out in the application which would persuade the tribunal to issue a commission. It is not by itself sufficient for issuance of a commission that the attendance of the witnesses before the tribunal could not be compelled in view of the provisions contained in Order 16, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code. It is worthy of note that by their application dated 2 January 1965, Balubhai, Manilal and Dattu Pandurang (who are parties to the proceedings before the tribunal) have themselves applied for their own examination on commission. No reason is given in that application why they cannot personally appear before the Claims Tribunal. Having regard to these facts and circumstances, the application for issuance of commission for the examination of these three witnesses is rejected. 7. Now remains the question of examination of Mansukhlal on commission. It is true that he is not a party to the case. It is also true that he resides at a place which is beyond the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction and more than 200 miles away from is precincts. But, as already said, that by itself is not sufficient to claim as of right that a commission should be issued for his examination. It is also true that he resides at a place which is beyond the local limits of the Court's jurisdiction and more than 200 miles away from is precincts. But, as already said, that by itself is not sufficient to claim as of right that a commission should be issued for his examination. It is not stated what the witness is going to depose to. This was not done even after the applicants opposed the application for issuance of a commission. In the impugned order, the learned tribunal, (Shri Pawday) no doubt says : "Ordinarily I would have ordered issue of commission in the normal course under the provision of Order 26, C. P. C., as admittedly the parties reside at Bombay". The learned tribunal has given no other reason. What he meant was that if Order 26, C. P. C. had been made applicable to the proceeding before the tribunal, it would have in the ordinary course ordered issuance of a commission. It is not as if it has set out any other reason which would persuade it to issue a commission. 8. In the view that I have taken of the provisions of law, it must be held that the Claims Tribunal is not powerless to issue a commission for the examination of a witness. It is clothed with that power but the power is discretionary and has to be exercised on fulfilment of certain conditions. So far as the present case is concerned, those conditions have not been satisfied to persuade issuance of commission for the examination of any of the four persons. 9. In the result, the revision is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs in the revision.