Judgment :- The Revision petitioner in each of the revisions” is the respective defendant in O.S. No. 1344/93 and O.S. No. 802/90, both on the file of Principal District Munisif, Dindigul. The respondent is the plaintiff in each of the suit and he is the same. In both the suits declaration of title is sought for. The plaintiff is a lawyer by profession. Stating that he is sick on account of heart ailment, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 918/97 in O.S. No. 1344/93 and I.A. No. 915/97 in O.S. No. 802/90 under Order 26, Rule I, C.P.C. for examining him, on commission. Those two applications were ordered. Hence, these two revisions before this court. 2. I heard Mr. M.V. Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases and Mr. S.M. Abdul Kadir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in both the revisions. 3. Mr. M.V. Krishnan would contend that there is a world of difference between party to a suit being examined on commission and a witness being examined on commission and this has been stressed by this Court in Zabiya Bibi v. Sivaperumal (1970 I M.L.J. 89) and Rajeevi Ammal v. M.M. Swamv Naidu ((1986) II M.L.J. 419). According to Mr. M.V. Krishnan, the plaintiff is an active practising lawyer, whereas according to Mr. Abdul Kadir, he is a non practising lawyer. Especially when the suit is based on title and the plaintiff being a lawyer, it is more essential that his evidence is recorded before the Court. The fact that he is ill does not appear to completely prevent him from moving around. 4. Therefore, taking into account the nature of the relief asked for and the position of the plaintiff in the society, I am inclined to pass the following order: “The order and decretal order in I.A. No. 918/97 in OS. No. 1344/93 and I.A. No. 915/97 in O.S. No. 802/90, both on the file of Principal District Munisiff, Dindigul are set aside. The revisions are allowed. No costs. No. 1344/93 and I.A. No. 915/97 in O.S. No. 802/90, both on the file of Principal District Munisiff, Dindigul are set aside. The revisions are allowed. No costs. However, since heart aliment is put forward as a ground of disability to climb 3 floors to reach the trial court the learned Principal District Judge, Dindigul is directed to issue suitable directions to the subordinate judicial officers at Dindigul to permit the examination of the plaintiff alone in the two suits Viz., O.S. No. 1044/93 and O.S. No. 802/90 both on the file of Principal District Munisif, Dindigul in any court situated in the ground floor of that court complex by fixing appropriate time for the examination and cross examination of the said plaintiff before the Principal District Munsif. Dindigul without any way causing any inconvenience to the normal and routine work of the Court situated in the ground floor” 5. Consequently, all the C.M.Ps. are dismissed.