K. A. SWAMI, J. ( 1 ) AT the stage of admission, the respondents are notified. Accordingly they have put in appearance through a counsel. Hence the matter is finally heard. ( 2 ) THIS CRP is directed against the order dt 3 4 1981 passed "by the learned chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes, bangalore, rejecting an application IA II filed by the plaintiff petitioner under Or. 26, Rr. 2 and 4 read with Or. 16, R 19 and s. 151 of CPC (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ). ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner-plaintiff, it is necessary to examine a witness by name Jeevanram, son of Manoharlal partner of Suresh Dhall and General Mills, hissar Road, Mehan, Haryana State, in order to establish his title to the goods in question, which is challenged by the respondents-defendants. The further case of the petitioner is that since Jeevanram son of manoharlal is residing about 2,500 kms away from the place where the Court is situated, as such he is entitled fora commission. The trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that the capital city of Haryana State and the City of bangalore where the Small Causes Court is situated are connected by air, therefore,, under the proviso to Cl. (b) of R. 19 of or. 16 of the Code, he may be paid air fare, so that the witness may come by air to give evidence in the case. It is also further stated that the unwillingness of a witness to go over to Bangalore to give evidence is not a valid reason for granting commission. ( 4 ) IT appears to me that the learned judge has not correctly read the provisions of Or. 16, R. 19 of the Code and Or. 26, r. 4 of the Code. The said provisions are as follows :"or. ( 4 ) IT appears to me that the learned judge has not correctly read the provisions of Or. 16, R. 19 of the Code and Or. 26, r. 4 of the Code. The said provisions are as follows :"or. XVI, R. 19-No witness to be ordered to attend in person unless resident within certain limits.-No one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides- (a) within the local limits of the court's ordinary original jurisdiction, of (b) without such limits but at a place less than one hundred or (where there is railway or steamer communication or other established public conveyance for five sixths of the distance between the place where the Court is situate) less than 500 kms distance from the Courthouse ; provided that where transport by air is available between the two places mentioned in this rule and the witness is paid the fair by air, he may be ordered to attend in person". "or, XXVI, R. 4-Person for whose examination commission may issue- (1) Any Court may in any suit issue a commission for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of- (a) any person resident beyond the local limits of its jurisdiction ; (b) any person who is about to leave such limits before the date on which be is required to be examined in Court; and (c) any person in the service of the government who cannot, in the opinion of the Court, attend without detriment to the public service i provided that where, under R. 19 of or. XVI, a person cannot be ordered to attend a Court in person, a commission shall be issued for bis examination if his evidence is considered necessary in the interest of justice; provided further that a commission for examination of such person on interrogatories shall not be issued unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks it necessary so to do. (2) Such commission may be issued to any Court, not being a High Court, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such person resides or to any pleader or other person whom, the Court issuing the commission may appoint. (3) The Court on issuing any commission under this rule shall direct whether the commission shall be returned to itself or to any subordinate Court". (3) The Court on issuing any commission under this rule shall direct whether the commission shall be returned to itself or to any subordinate Court". The object of these Rules is to safeguard the interest of the persons who are not parties to the proceeding and whose evidence a party to the proceeding wants to be recorded and who do not fall within the scope of the R. 19 of Or. XVI of the Code, so that such persons are not unnecessarily harassed to antend the Court in person. From R. 19 of Or. XVI of the Code, it is clear that no person can be compelled to attend any Court to give evidence, unless he resides within the local limits of the court's ordinary original jurisdiction. From C!. (b) thereof, it is further clear that if a person, who is required to b examined as a witness, resides at a place less than 100 kms away from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or within 500 kms from the Court-house and five sixths of the distance between the place where he resldes and the place where the court is situate, it served either by railway or steamer communication or by other established public conveyance, he can be compelled to attend the Court in person to give evidence. But, in respect of a person whose examination in the opinion of the court is necessary to render justice and he resides beyond 500 kms from the Court house, he cannot at all be compelled to attend the Court in person to give evidence. The proviso which is added by cen. Act 104 of 1976 to R. 19 of Or. XVI of the Code, does not state that wherever the two places mentioned in the Rule are connected by air, the witness can be compelled to attend the Court in person. On the contrary, what is stated in the aforesaid proviso is that if the aforesaid two places are' connected by air and if the witness is paid air-fare, be may be ordered to attend in person. The proviso is only an enabling provision. On the contrary, what is stated in the aforesaid proviso is that if the aforesaid two places are' connected by air and if the witness is paid air-fare, be may be ordered to attend in person. The proviso is only an enabling provision. Its operation depends upon the willingness of the party to bear the cost of air-fare, This is not a case in which the plaintiff has stated that he is ready to pay the air-fare to the witness : therefore, the first proviso cannot at all be made use of. The first proviso is available only when the party who wants to examine a person who resides at a place to which transport by air is available from the place of the Court is ready (o pay air fare, While amending of. XVI, R. 19 of the Code, Or. XXVI, r. . 4 of the Code also has been amended bf providing a proviso which is to the effect that where a person cannot be ordered to attend a Court in person under r. 19 of Or. XVI of the Code, a commission shall be issued for his examination if his evidence is considered necessary in the interests of justice. In the Instant case, it is not the case of the respondents nor it is stated in the order of the trial Judge that the evidence of Sri Jeevanram son of manoharlai is not necessary for the purpose of proving the claim of the plaintiff, as already pointed oat, it is the case of the plaintiff that the evidence of Jeevanram son of Manoharlal is necessary for the purpose of establishing his title to the goods in question which is challenged by the defendant. That being so, having regard to the first proviso to r. 4 of Or. 26 of the Code and also in view of the fact that Jeevanram resides beyond 500 kms from the Court house, the plaintiff is entitled for a commission to examine him as his witness. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, this revision petition is allowed. The Order dt 3-4-1981 passed by the learned Chief Judge of the Small causes Court is set aside and the application for issuing commission to examine jeevanram son of Manoharlai as a witness in the case is allowed. The trial Court is directed to take necessary steps in the matter. --- *** --- .