JUDGMENT The non-claimant/applicant Insurance Company being aggrieved by the rejection of their application filed under Order 26 Rule 4 CPC has filed this revision petition. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that on certain investigations it was found that the licence on which reliance was placed was forged and fake document, therefore the licencing authority of Uttar Pradesh was required to be examined. It was also claimed that the investigator H.P. Singh resident of Kanpur, made certain investigations, therefore he is also required to be examined in the matter. It was submitted before the lower Court that as the licencing authority and the investigator are not residing in the jurisdiction of the trial Court, therefore commission be issued for their examination. The trial Court by the impugned order rejected the application. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant Insurance Company has filed this revision petition. I have heard the parties at length. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below was not unjustified in rejecting the application for examination of the investigator H.P. Singh on commission. Said investigator was employed by the present applicant, therefore he could certainly be produced as a witness in the Court. So far as rejection of the application relating to examination of licencing authority on commission is concerned, the order is not tenable. The Court has lost sight of the fact that even if the summons are served on the licencing authority then the Court cannot compel his attendance in the Court. Even otherwise it had to be appreciated by the Court that issuance of commission for examination of a Govt. Official was necessary because certain records maintained by the licencing authority were also required to be produced. The order rejecting the application for examination of the licencing authority on commission deserves to and is accordingly set aside. The revision petition to the extent indicated above deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The trial Court shall appoint a local commissioner for examination of the said licencing authority. The order rejecting the application for examination of the licencing authority on commission deserves to and is accordingly set aside. The revision petition to the extent indicated above deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The trial Court shall appoint a local commissioner for examination of the said licencing authority. As the matter relates to a claim, it is further directed that within two weeks from the date of appearance of the parties on the date already fixed by the lower Court, the trial Court shall appoint a commissioner with a direction that it shall return the commission with its report within one month from the date of issuance. The revision to the extent indicated above is allowed. No costs.