JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) challenges the order dated 28.3.2002 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Khanna dismissing the application of the defendant-petitioner seeking permission of the Court to examine the witnesses at Chennai (Madras) on the ground that distance between Khanna and Chennai is more than 500 kilometers and that there has been no air link between Khanna and Chennai. On the basis of these facts, a prayer was made that all the witnesses of the defendant-petitioner be examined on commission or through interrogatories. The trial Court dismissed the application by reaching the conclusion that the same has been moved in order to delay the proceedings because on an earlier occasion Shri Gautam Surana, Chairman of the defendant-petitioner has appeared as DW-1 when the order had been recorded on preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction. Another reason given by the Civil Judge is that the plaintiff-respondent would be deprived of cross-examining the witnesses if their statements are recorded on commission and there is direct link of transport through air because Sahnewal which is about 30 kilometers from Khanna Courts has an aerodrome and that road transport facility is available from Sahnewal to Khanna. 2. Brief facts of the case which are necessary for decision of the controversy raised in this petition are tha plaintiff-respondent filed Civil Suit No. 723/RBT/889/29.9.1995/15.6.1996 for recovery of Rs. 12,41,709/- against the defendant-petitioner. Defendant-petitioner raised some preliminary objections with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Khanna and it was during the decision of the preliminary issue with regard to jurisdiction when Mr. Gautam Surana, Chairman of the defendant-company had appeared as DW-1. Eventually the issue with regard to jurisdiction was decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent who concluded the same in December, 2001. On 8.12.2001, defendant-petitioner moved an application for examination of the witnesses through commission. The application was contested and the trial Court dismissed the same by recording the following order :- ".... It is stated that since all the witnesses of defendants are based at Chennai and distance between Khanna and Chennai is more thant 500 Kms. as such under the law, witnesses to be produced, have to be examined by commission or through interrogatories. There is no direct air service from Chennai to Khanna. It is stated that since all the witnesses of defendants are based at Chennai and distance between Khanna and Chennai is more thant 500 Kms. as such under the law, witnesses to be produced, have to be examined by commission or through interrogatories. There is no direct air service from Chennai to Khanna. It is thus prayed that application be allowed accordingly. Perusal of file shows that earlier Sh. Gautam Surana, Chairman of defendant-company had appeared as DW-1 while evidence was recorded on the preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction. When Sh. Gautam Surana had earlier appeared in the Court, it is not understood that why he as well as other witnesses cannot appear again in this case. If the commission is sent to Chennai to record statements of witnesses of the defendants, plaintiff would be deprived of his right to cross-examine the witnesses. Apart from this, Chennai and Khanna has link with transport through air because Sahnewal which is about 30 kilometersaway from Khanna Courts has an aerodrome (sic ...?) and there is provision of transportation by way of Air. Consequently, present application filed by defendant is without merits, appears to have been filed just to prolong the proceedings of this case. Same is, therefore, dismissed. Now to come upon 20.4.2002 for evidence of defendants at their own responsibility." 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Bajaj, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and have perused the impugned order. Learned counsel has argued that in accordance with the provisions of Order 16 Rule 19 of the Code, no witness could be ordered to attend the Court in person, unless he/she is residing within the jurisdiction of the Court or at a place situated at less than 500 kilometers distance from the Courts. In support of his submission, the learned counsel had placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurpal Kaur v. Charan Kaur and others, 1985 P.L.J. 610 and Kewal v. Smt. Swaran Kaur, (1990-1)97 PLR 94. 4. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. It is appropriate to make a reference to the provisions of Order 16 Rule 19 and Order 26 Rules 1 and 4 of the Code which reads as under :-