In a suit filed against Habi­bullah, a resident of Pakistan, by Nikhil Poddar and others for recovery of damages on account of malicious prosecution, he (the defendant) moved an application in the trial Court praying that he and his witnesses, who are also residents of Pakistan, should be per­mitted to be examined on commission. That application was rejected by the trial Court on 10-4-1967 on the basis that there was no reciprocal arrangement between India and Pakistan in regard to examination of wit­nesses on commission. Aggrieved by that order, Habibullah has come up in revision to this Court. 2. It was held in the case of Mohammad Azizul Rahman Khan v. Mohammad Ibrahim, AIR 1958 All 19 , that the issue of a commission for examination of a witness is not the right of a party but is dependent upon the discretion] of the Court. The High Court observed further that if there are no reciprocal ar­rangements between India and Pakistan res­pecting the examination of witnesses on com­mission, the Court is well within its rights in rejecting an application for issue of com­mission. The High Court agreed with the trial Court's finding that there was no reci­procal arrangement between the two coun­tries for examination of witnesses on commis­sion. Likewise, the Punjab High Court held in the case of National Fire and General Insu­rance Co. Ltd. v. Mool Singh, AIR 1951 Punj (Simla) 227, that there was no reci­procal arrangement between India and Paki­stan and as such a letter of request cannot be addressed to a Court in Pakistan in terms of Order XXVI, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code for the examination of a witness residing there. It was held further that an officer of a Court in India, in the absence of any reci­procal arrangement regarding examination of a witness on commission, is not competent to record evidence on commission in Paki­stan. In this case Harnam Singh, J., approving­ly referred to a previous judgment of the Punjab High Court in the Civil Revn. No. 58 of 1950 (Punj) decided by Khosla, J., who had held that a party cannot as of right demand the issue of a commission to a place outside India unless reciprocal arrangements exist and have been recognised by the High Court. Khosla, J., also hap­pened to observe that it was con­ceded before him that there was no such arrangement existing between India and Pakistan. Khosla, J., also hap­pened to observe that it was con­ceded before him that there was no such arrangement existing between India and Pakistan. Harnam Singh, J., held further in the case of National Fire and General Insu­rance Co. Ltd., AIR 1951 Punj 227 that the order of the trial Court refusing the prayer for examining the witnesses on commission in Pakistan does not fall within the ambit of Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Hence, he happen­ed to dismiss the revision petition on the double finding that no revision was compe­tent and that since there was no reciprocal arrangement between the two countries, the commission could not be issued. With respect I agree with these observations of the learn­ed Judge and they are also in accord, I may add, with what was held in Mohammad Khan's case (supra). 3. As against the two authorities of Alla­habad and Punjab High Courts cited on be­half of the respondents, Shri M. R. Chou­dhury, appearing for the defendant-petitioner has placed reliance on the decision in Hukumal v. Manghoomal, AIR 1953 Ajmer 27, where it was held that if "the witness lives at a considerable distance in Pakistan and cannot be compelled to attend the Court" a commission can be issued for his examina­tion. A perusal of the report shows that no objection was raised before the Judicial Commissioner that there being no reciprocal arrangement between India and Pakistan for examination of witnesses on commission the prayer made for the purpose was not tena­ble. Therefore, the decision in Hukumal's case is not much of importance because the point that has arisen for determination in the instant revision petition was not debated in that case. Shri M. R. Choudhury, however, urges that this Court should assume that by the time the case of Hukumal was decided, reci­procal arrangements between India and Paki­stan for examination of witnesses on com­mission had been arrived at. I regret my inability to accept that contention. Hukumal's case was decided on 27-1-1953, whereas the Allahabad High Court decided the case of Mohammad Khan on 22-3-1957. If any such arrangement had been reached between the two countries by 27-1-1953, the Allahabad High Court could not have failed to take notice of it in March, 1957. 4. Shri M. R. Choudhury also placed reli­ance on the decision in State Bank of India V. Mrs. If any such arrangement had been reached between the two countries by 27-1-1953, the Allahabad High Court could not have failed to take notice of it in March, 1957. 4. Shri M. R. Choudhury also placed reli­ance on the decision in State Bank of India V. Mrs. J. K. Sohan Singh, AIR 1963 Punj 27. However, that judgment has no rele­vancy to the case in hand. The revision was allowed in that case and the commission re­called on the basis that the facts which were sought to be proved on commission issued to a witness in Pakistan at the instance of the respondent were opposed to the allega­tions made in the written statement by her and that, as such, there was no justification for issuing the commission. The questions whether or not a commission could be issued to a witness in Pakistan, and whether there was any reciprocal arrangement for execu­tion of commissions for examination of wit­nesses between India and Pakistan, did not arise for determination in this Punjab case, nor were debated before the High Court nor decided by it. Hence, that case is of no help for the proposition canvassed by Shri M. R. Ckoudhury. 5. For the reasons given above, the peti­tion fails and is rejected. However, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. I may observe here, as desired by Shri M. R. Chou­dhury, that if before the suit is disposed of by the trial Court it is proved that reciprocal arrangement has been arrived at between the two countries, India and Pakistan, for examination of witnesses on commission, the defendant-petitioner may move the trial Court for granting the prayer made in the present petition. Petition dismissed.