JUDGMENT : Sanju Panda, J. - In this writ application challenge has been made to the Order Dated 15.11.2008 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack in Title Suit No. 495 of 2001 rejecting an application filed by the Petitioner Under Order 26, Rule 1, CPC. 2. The facts as narrated in the writ application are as follows: The Petitioner, who is aged about 60 years, is Defendant No. 1 in the suit. Opp. Party No. 1 as Plaintiff filed the suit praying for a declaration that the suit schedule property is joint family homestead property, & for permanent injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from going over the suit-land & in case Defendant No. 1 was found to be being in possession, recovery of possession & repurchase of the sub scheduled property & for further declaration that recording of the name of Defendant No. 1 in the consolidation ROR is illegal & without jurisdiction & the alleged partition dated 12.10.1969 was invalid & illegal with other ancillary reliefs. 3. After the Plaintiffs evidence was closed, Defendant No. 1 examined two witnesses. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 Petitioner filed an application Under Order 26, Rule 1 CPC with a prayer to depute a commission to examine him at his residence as he was suffering from partial paralysis & admitted to Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar. Since Defendant No. 1 was not able to move & was completely bed ridden, along with his application he filed the requisition for medicine, medication sheet, copy of bed head chart & the medical certificate. The Plaintiff filed his objection to the said application specifically alleging that the medical documents were created & fabricated. The documents regarding bed head ticket & list of medicines etc. were not acceptable without any medical certificate. It was further alleged by the Plaintiff that in order to avoid the Court to mark the demeanour of the witness during cross-examination in the case, Defendant No. 1 filed this application. He also objected that the present address of Defendant No. 1 was not furnished & the Plaintiff would not be able to meet the expenses to depute a commission to the house of Defendant No. 1 for his examination. 4. He also objected that the present address of Defendant No. 1 was not furnished & the Plaintiff would not be able to meet the expenses to depute a commission to the house of Defendant No. 1 for his examination. 4. Considering the application, the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) rejected the same with the finding that there was no medical certificate issued by any registered medical practitioner showing the infirmity or illness of Defendant No. 1 & it was also not clear that the medication sheet & temperature chart referred to any disease which rendered the condition of the patient so miserable as not to allow him to come to the Court & get himself examined as a witness. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate the materials available on record though the documents filed by the Petitioner indicated regarding his admission to the Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital and other documents showed his health condition. He further submitted that those materials should not have been ignored by the Court below & since the evidence of Defendant No. 1 is very vital in the suit, he should have been examined by a commission as he was not in a condition to come to the Court & his application to depute a commission to examine him should have been favourably considered by the Court befow. 6. Learned Counsel for the Opp. Parties vehemently objected & stated that at present the Petitioner is not hospitalized nor is he in a condition to come to the Court & depose. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly rejected the application. 7. Order 26, Rule 1, CPC confers wide discretion on the Court to issue a commission for examination of any person where a witness is to be examined & to issue such commission for the said purpose, the Court has to accept a certificate purported to be signed by a registered medical practitioner as evidence of sickness or infirmity without calling the medical practitioner as a witness to support the said plea. 8. In the present case, the Petitioner filed some documents in support of his plea of illness. Those documents were not duly proved that those were issued by a registered medical practitioner. The Apex Court in a decision reported in Mohit Kumar and Others Vs. 8. In the present case, the Petitioner filed some documents in support of his plea of illness. Those documents were not duly proved that those were issued by a registered medical practitioner. The Apex Court in a decision reported in Mohit Kumar and Others Vs. Dato Mohan Swami and Others, has held that the Court may liberally exercise its power of permitting recording of evidence on commission excepting for such witnesses who are very material & who the Learned Judge, in his discretion, feels necessary must appear before him so that the demeanour of any witness may need to be watched. 9. Admittedly Defendant No. 1 in the present case is a very vital witness & he was partially affected by Paralysis. Therefore, there is no material on record that due to the said ailment he was unable to move. 10. Since in the present case, the Trial Court considered the materials before him regarding the illness of Defendant No. 1 & it was not satisfied that the said witness should be examined on commission, there is no error apparent on the face of the impugned order. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Final Result : Dismissed