Judgment :- 1. The second defendant in a suit for partition is the revision petitioner. 2. The order under challenge is one by which the court below has directed the petitioner to "deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the batta" to summon a witness who admittedly is residing more than 400 kms. distance from the courthouse, mentioned in sub-clause (b) of R.19 of Order XVI C. P. C., as amended by this court. The amended rule reads: "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) (b) Without such limits but at place less than four hundred kilometres distant from the court house. Provided that, where the court is satisfied that, in the interest of justice, it is necessary to compel the attendance of an expert residing beyond this distance but within the territory of India who has given an opinion for the purpose of the case, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, order him to attend in person: Clause (b) above provides that no one shall be ordered to attend in person to give evidence unless he resides less than four hundred kilometres distance from the court house. The first proviso to this clause however, has carved put an exception and it is this: If the court however, is satisfied that in the interest of justice it is necessary to compel the attendance of an expert witness residing beyond the four hundred kilometres distance from the court house but within the territory of India and who has given an opinion for the purpose of the case, the court has the power, for reasons to be recorded in writing, to order him to attend in person and give evidence in the case. That means no other person can be summoned to attend and give evidence in person if he is residing more than four hundred kilometres distance from the court house. 3. If that be so, the court has no power to summon a person as a witness if he is residing at a place beyond the territory of India. 4. The person who is ordered to attend in person, admittedly is residing beyond the territory of India. 3. If that be so, the court has no power to summon a person as a witness if he is residing at a place beyond the territory of India. 4. The person who is ordered to attend in person, admittedly is residing beyond the territory of India. If that be so, the order under challenge directing the second defendant to take out summons to the said person, is without jurisdiction. The order therefore is set aside. The C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. Issue carbon copy on usual terms.