Honble SHARMA, J.–Instant revision impugns the order dated April 9, 1997 of the learned Addl.Distt. Judge No.1 Jodhpur, whereby application under Order 26, Rule 1 CPC moved by the defendant petitioner (for short the Company) for issuance of commission to examine the Managing Director of the Company, was dismissed. (2). Brief facts giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiff non-petitioner (for short the plaintiff) instituted suit for accounts on March 5, 1990 against the company in the trial court. The written statement of the company was signed and verified by its General Manager A.S. Pathan (since dead). The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on Feb. 6, 1997 and the case was posted for recording the evidence of the company. On March 6, 1997 the company submitted an application under Order 26 Rule 1 CPC. for issuance of Commission to examine its Managing Director Chhote Lal Mistry. It was stated in the application that the witness is a heart patient and he was operated upon in 1990. He is not in a position to travel by air or Motor car therefore his statements may be recorded on commission. His Medical certificate was also produced. Learned trial court dismissed the applica- tion on the ground that there was no justification for issuing the commission. Com- panys General Manager Ramesh Chand can appear as a witness and depose on behalf of the company. (3). Mr. R.R. Nagori, learned counsel appearing for the company canvassed that prayer for issuing of commission cannot be refused. The application was supported by a medical certificate and it ought to have relied upon by the trial court. Learned counsel further contended that there was no delay on the part of the company and the application was filed on the day when the case was posted for recording the evidence of the company. Reliance was placed on Bakhtawar Khan vs. Noor Mohd. (1) and Jiwi Bai vs. Laxmi Chand (2). (4). On the other hand, Mr. B.M. Singhvi, learned counsel for the plaintiff sup- ported the impugned order and urged that there was a deliberate act of delaying the proceedings of the suit on the part of the company. Examination-in- chief of the plaintiff Ram Narain began on January 5. 1995 but his cross-examination was continued on Jan. 25, 1995, May 10, 1995, August 24, 1995, April 15, 1996, Sept. 21, 1996, Sept. Examination-in- chief of the plaintiff Ram Narain began on January 5. 1995 but his cross-examination was continued on Jan. 25, 1995, May 10, 1995, August 24, 1995, April 15, 1996, Sept. 21, 1996, Sept. 24, 1996 and November 30, 1996. My attention was drawn towards the provisions contained in Order 26 Rule 4 CPC and it was contended that the court is vested with the discretion to issue the commission of a witness if his evidence is considered necessary in the interest of justice. (5). I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned order. (6). At the outset I may observe that the witness Chhotelal Mistry does not reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the trial court therefore the provisions of Order 26, Rule 1 CPC shall not be applicable. Now it is to be seen as to whether commissioner can be issued under Order 26, Rule 4. According to this order a court can issue commission for the examination on interrogatories or other- wise of any person resident beyond the local limits of its jurisdiction provided his evidence is necessary in the interest of justice. Rule 3 of Order 29 provides that the court may, at any stage of the suit, require the personal appearance of the Secretary or any Director or other Principal Officer of the corporation who may be able to answer material questions relating to the suit. According to Order 29, Rule 1, any pleading of a suit by or against a corporation may be signed and verified on behalf of the corporation by the Secretary or Director or other Principal Officer, able to depose to the facts of the case. (7). It is the sole discretion of the trial court to require the personal appearance of any principal officer of the company who may be able to answer material ques- tion relating to suit. Therefore the observation of the learned trial court that company may produce Ramesh Chand, General Manager as witness on its behalf, can not be said unjust. The company cannot insist to examine its Managing Director Chhote Lal Mistry who is a sick person. (8). Proviso to Rule 4 of Order 26 was appended by the Amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from Feb. The company cannot insist to examine its Managing Director Chhote Lal Mistry who is a sick person. (8). Proviso to Rule 4 of Order 26 was appended by the Amending Act 104 of 1976 with effect from Feb. 1, 1997 according to which a commission shall be issued for examination of a witness when his evidence is considered necessary in the interest of justice. The evidence of witness Chhotelal Mistry has not been considered necessary by the trial court and I am also of the view that looking to the provisions contained in Order 29, Rule 3 the examination of Chhote Lal Mistry is not necessary in the interest of justice. The Company can examine its General Manager Ramesh Chand, who may also be able to answer material questions relating to suit. The authorities cited by Mr. Nagori learned counsel do not apply to the facts of the case on hand. I do not see any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order. (9). Consequently, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs.