O R D E R This revision is filed against an order passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge. Vijayawada in I.A.No.1915/2002 in O.S.No.7792. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 26. Rule-1 of C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of recording her evidence at her residence at Hyderabad. She stated that she was 74 years old. She was weak and due to hypertension and peripheral Neuritis she was advised by Doctor to observe diet control and she was not in a position to undertake long journey for the purpose of rendering evidence. A medical certificate issued by a Doctor was also annexed by her with the application. This application was contested by the defendants. They contended that the plaintiff was a vital witness they also contended that the case of the plaintiff was based on fraud therefore her demeanor was important to be noted by the Court while recording her statement. The trial court dismissed the application, hence this revision by the plaintiff-petitioner. Order 26, Rule-1 states: 1. Cases in which court may issue commission to examine witness - Any Court may in any suit issue a commission for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction who is exempted under this Code from attending the Court or who is from sickness infirmity unable to attend it: Provided that a commission for examination on interrogatories shall not be issued unless the court for reasons to be recorded, thinks it necessary so to do. Explanation: The Court may for the purpose of this rule accept a certificate purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner as evidence of the sickness or informity of any person without calling the medical practitioner as a witness. This rule has a proviso and an explanation. In the explanation it has specifically been stated that the Court may for the purpose of the rule accept a certificate purported to have been signed by a registered medical practitioner as evidence of sickness of any person without calling the medical practitioner as a witness. Therefore, it follows that if an application is made for the purpose of examining a witness on commission on the ground of sickness the certificate issued by a medical practitioner is the conclusive proof of his sickness. Therefore, it follows that if an application is made for the purpose of examining a witness on commission on the ground of sickness the certificate issued by a medical practitioner is the conclusive proof of his sickness. The factum of sickness cannot be made a dispute between the parties and shall not be settled as an issue. It can also be said that a forged or an incorrect certificate could be obtained, but in such a case the person contesting the appointment of commission will have to substantiate it by leading evidence on his side. Unless the certificate is disputed, in my view. that would be conclusive proof to establish that the witness for whose examination commission is sought to be appointed is sick. In the present case. though the certificate has not been produced before this Court but it appears from the order of the trial court that it went into the merits of the certificate itself. The learned trial judge has discussed the disease which the petitioner suffers from and gave even a finding that it was not a serious disease. This finding is without any basis. It is only for experts to know whether Peripheral Neuritis was a serious disease and would prevent the petitioner from traveling. If the Doctor was of the opinion that because of this disease the petitioner could not travel, in the absence of counter opinion by an expert this opinion had to be accepted. The learned trial court had even gone further and stated that the Doctor was managed to issue the certificate. Obviously this observation is without any material on record. Rule-1 of Order 26 C.P.C gives a discretion to the Courts to appoint Commissions for recording statements of witnesses and this discretion has to be exercised judicially, not with some fixed notions. Coming to the recording of the demeanor of the witness the Commissioner who will examine the witness is not deprived of making such notice while recording the statement. In any case, the respondents cannot expect that the Judge who records her statement would also be certainly there to decide the matter finally because Judicial Officers are frequently transferred. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to two judgments one being ADHIR CHANDRA BANERJEE VS.LILABATI MUKHERJEE (1) and the other being PALANIAPPA Vs. NARAYANAN (2). In any case, the respondents cannot expect that the Judge who records her statement would also be certainly there to decide the matter finally because Judicial Officers are frequently transferred. The learned counsel for the respondents referred to two judgments one being ADHIR CHANDRA BANERJEE VS.LILABATI MUKHERJEE (1) and the other being PALANIAPPA Vs. NARAYANAN (2). The judgment of Calcutta High Court (1 supra) is not at all relevant in view of the explanation given to Rule -1 of Order 26. There is no dispute with the judgment of Madras High Court (2 supra) that a commission cannot be issued as a matter of right and it is a matter of discretion. For the reasons given above, I am of the view that the trial court has exercised its discretion erroneously. Therefore, I allow the revision and set aside the order of the trial court. It is directed that the witness be examined on appointment of commission. The Commissioner shall be appointed by the trial court. --X—