M. NAGAPPA, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition came up for admission today. The counsel for the land-lord- respondent was served with the notice regarding admission. As the point involved in the case revolves on a short question whether Commission warrant should be issued for examination of the landlady in question, the learned counsel were heard on merits and the petition is disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) THE petitioner herein was the tenant- respondent in H. R. C. No. 4635/1980 (Old no. 1161/1980), on the file of the III Addl small Cause Judge, Bangalore City. The landlady-petitioner filed an application i. A. II purported to be one under Or. 26, r. 4 read with S. 151 of CPC, for issue of commission to examine the petitioner at Mysore. She also filed an affidavit in support of her application and the averments in the affidavit are to the effect that she is aged lady suffering from diabietes, high blood-pressure and she was admitted to the hospital on 9-11-81 and she got paralytic attack and her right part of the body is affected and she was an inpatient in the hospital till 16-11-81 and that she is under constant medical care and that she has been advised by the doctor to take complete rest and not to move about and not even to travel. She has, therefore, prayed that she may be examined on commission. ( 3 ) THE said application was resisted by the tenant mainly" on the ground that the certificate produced by the landlady in support of her application is not a genuine one and denied all the averments made in the affidavit. ( 4 ) THE learned Small Cause Judge, after considering the arguments advanced in that behalf allowed the petition and directed the landlady to bear the expenses of the Commission. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenant has come up with this petition challenging its legality and correctness. Sri M. R. Narasimhamurthy, the learned counsel for tenant-petitioner, vehemently contended that the order cannot be sustained in law inasmuch as the genuiness of the medical certificate produced by the landlady herself is doubted. In other words, what he submitted was that the Court was not justified in acting upon the certificate in the absence of the proof of the same by examining the doctor who issued the said certificate. In other words, what he submitted was that the Court was not justified in acting upon the certificate in the absence of the proof of the same by examining the doctor who issued the said certificate. He also brought to the notice of the court a decision in AIR 1950 Cal. 173 , wherein it has been laid down that the court while issuing commission for examination of a party or a witness on the ground that he is suffering from illness, the Court should not act on the production of the medical certificate itself and it is incumbent upon the person who produced the medical certificate to prove the same by examining the doctor who issued the said certificate. Contra, Sri Yoga Nirasimha, learned counsel for the landlady-respondent, submitted that apart from the production of the medical certificate by her along with the application in question, he has also produced before this Court number of certificates issued by the Doctor during the relevant periods to indicate that the landlady is not keeping good health and that she is undergoing treatment for several months. In addition to this he also submitted and brought to the notice of the Court the Expln. in proviso to Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC which. reads thus :"the Court may, for the purpose of this rule, accept a certificate purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner as evidence of the sickness or infirmity of any person, without calling the medical practitioner as a witness". 1 think that this is a complete answer to the argument put forward by Mr. Narasimha Murthy. In addition to this the Court also has been cautious and has stated while allowing LA. II that the petitioner landlady shall bear the expenses of the commission. If that is so, the tenant petitioner could not have any grievance with regard to the impugned order and further the impugned order does not call for interference by this court. In this view of the matter, the petition does not survive for consideration and the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .