Judgment :- This revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, allowing an application filed by the Power of Attorney Agent of the plaintiff to examine the plaintiff on commission. 2. The power of Attorney Agent wanted to examine his father, the plaintiff, on commission as he was extremely old and weak and confined to bed at Tirukoilur. That application was resisted on the ground that when the matter came up for hearing on 16th July, 1984 there was no representation that the plaintiff was old and he will not be in a position to attend Court, that the plaintiff is sought to be kept out of box by the power of Attorney Agent who is none other than his son and that if a Commissioner is appointed to examine the plaintiff on commission, the Court will not have the advantage of observing the demeanour of the plaintiff which is an important factor in deciding the suit. 3. The petition was allowed on the ground that the plaintiff is an aged man of 92 years and is suffering from heart disease and hypertension. That order is challenged in this revision. 4. The plaintiff, represented by his power of Attorney Agent, has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.25,900 against the defendants. The first defendant is the daughter-in-law of M.M.Swamy, the plaintiff and the widow of one of the sons of Swamy. The Power of Attorney Agent of the plaintiff is the son of M.M. Swamy. It is clear even from the plaint averments that there was deep misunderstanding and total estrangement betwen Swamy, the father, and Govindarajulu, his son, who is the Power of Attorney Agent. One of the contentions of the daughter-in-law, as seen from her written statement, is that after the death of her husband, the said Swamy executed a settlement. The written statement does not say in whose favour the settlement was executed, but from the plaint averments, it is seen that it was executed in favour of the first defendant (Rajeevi). It is also seen from her written statement that the first defendant questions the very execution of the (sic) settlement. Admittedly Swamy and his son, the power of attorney agent, were not on good, terms. It is also seen from her written statement that the first defendant questions the very execution of the (sic) settlement. Admittedly Swamy and his son, the power of attorney agent, were not on good, terms. The apprehension of the first defendant is that the power of attorney agent himself claimed some property belonging to the husband of the first defendant and in fact the son of the power of attorney agent filed a suit, O.S.No.54 of 1976 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for partition. That suit was dismissed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that in order to keep the plaintiff out of box, the power of Attorney agent himself has filed this petition. These allegations in the plaint and the written statement are now referred to point out contentions of the parties. The father-in-law, Swamy, is said to have executed a settlement in favour of the first defendant, when his son, Dayalu, who had married the first defendant, died. 5. The second defendant opposed the application for appointment of Commissioner on the ground that the plaintiff, Swamy, is kept in the house of his daughter, the sister-in-law of the first defendant and it would be difficult for the defendants to examine the plaintiff in his daughter house at Tirukoilur. It is further pointed out that his demeanour in the box has to be observed by the learned Subordinate Judge and therefore the plaintiff should not be examined on commission. Thirdly, it is contended that being a party to the suit, the plaintiff should not ordinarily be examined on commission." 6. The learned Subordinate Judge has stated that if the defendants do not want to go to the house of the daughter of the plaintiff, where the plaintiff is, for cross-examining him, some other venue can be found for the examination of the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is in a position to go to some other venue as suggested by the Subordinate Judge, he could as well go over to the Court for being examined. If the plaintiff is in a position to go to some other venue as suggested by the Subordinate Judge, he could as well go over to the Court for being examined. Ananthanarayanan, C.J. in Lakshman Chettiar v. Vadivelu Ambalam, (1967)80 L.W. 148 , stated that very vital factors for the appreciation of evidence such as the demeanour of the party under cross-examination, etc., may have to be assessed and a party ought not to be lightly permitted to escape such scrutiny by the plea that the party is residing beyond the jurisdiction. Ismail, J., as he then was in Zabiya Bibi v. Sivaperumal, (1968)81 L.W. 430 , took the view that there is a vital difference between a witness and a party to the suit in the matter of examination on commission and that a witness is not interested in the suit. The learned Judge further pointed out, that the plaintiff is the person who has initiated the action and has chosen the forum and dragged the defendant into Court and that the position is different from that of a third party and therefore it cannot be said that there is no difference between a party-witness and a third party-witness in the matter of examination on commission. In this case, the plaintiff is sought to be examined on commission and he is said to be too weak and infirm and is ailing. A certificate from a doctor has been filed which was believed by the learned Subordinate Judge. But, at the time when the plaint was filed the plaintiff was residing at Cuddalore as seen from the plaint. Now, he is said to be residing at Tirukoilur. It is orally represented before me that the plaintiff has also been taken to Srirangam. These allegations would show that the plaintiff is able to move from place to place. I am not inclined to place much reliance on the certificate of the doctor filed by the respondent. The reason is that there was no whisper about the illness of the plaintiff when the matter came up for hearing on 16th July, 1984. These allegations would show that the plaintiff is able to move from place to place. I am not inclined to place much reliance on the certificate of the doctor filed by the respondent. The reason is that there was no whisper about the illness of the plaintiff when the matter came up for hearing on 16th July, 1984. My attention was invited to a decision in Lakshmanan v. Ellammal, (1978)2 M.L.J. 280 : (1978)91 L.W. 486 , where a single Judge of this Court took the view that a certificate issued by a medical practitioner can be accepted by the Court, as evidence of the sickness or infirmity of any person without calling the medical practitioner as a witness, but however, if the Court feels any doubt about the acceptance of the certificate it could call the medical practitioner as a witness to find out the truth or otherwise of the averments contained in the certificate. With respect to the learned Judge, I am of the view that the discretion to accept or to reject the medical evidence should be left to the Court concerned as is clear from the word may used in the Explanation to Or.26, R.1, C.P.C It cannot be said that the Court must accept the certificate. In the affidavit, I do not find any reference to the age of the plaintiff. The affidavit itself consists of only two paragraphs, the first one pertaining to the illness. Except a bald statement that the father is old and weak and is confined to bed and is unable to venture out of the house at Tirukoilur and is undergoing treatment as an outpatient in the hospital, nothing is mentioned about the illness. In this case, the plaintiff who is the dominus litis, has filed the suit at Cuddalore. The power of attorney agent has filed this petition for examination of the plaintiff on commission and alleges sickness and infirmity in the affidavit, but the certificate of the doctor speaks of ailment of heart and hypertension (as is evident from the order of the learned Subordinate Judge). In such a situation, the Court has to assess the character and gravity of the sickness or infirmity and the risk consequent on the refusal to issue a commission. In such a situation, the Court has to assess the character and gravity of the sickness or infirmity and the risk consequent on the refusal to issue a commission. When the witness is able to proceed from Cuddalore to Tirukoilur and according to the defendants from Tirukoilur to Srirangam, there is no reason why he should not be examined in Court. It is always important to have the parties present before Court. There is always the advantage emerging from the examination and cross-examination of the party in Court. There ought also be a necessity of the Court examining the party. These matters have to be considered by the lower Court. It is only then it could be said that the order is passed in the exercise of its judicial discretion. The defendants in this case insist on the attendance of the plaintiff. The Court has undoubtedly to take into consideration the grounds upon which the defendants insist on the presence of the plaintiff. According to the first defendant she married the son of Swami, who died subsequently and Swami, out of love and affection for his son wife, has executed a settlement which the plaintiff calls a business settlement. But now the power of attorney agent, keeping Swami out of box, wants to recover a sum of Rs.25,900 from the defendants. It is also suggested by her that the plaintiff would not have executed the power of attorney in favour of his son as he and his son, the power of attorney agent, were litigating for a number of years. In the face of these allegations, it appears to me that the defendants must be given a full opportunity of testing by cross-examination the plaintiff in Court. In my view, in according the privilege of the plaintiff being examined on commis-sion, there is grave risk of doing injustice to the defendants. 7. For the foregoing reasons, I allow this revision, set aside the order of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, I.A.No.697 of 1984 and dismiss the petition. There will be no order as to costs.