R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. Defendant No. 1 is the petitioner in this case. Opposite Party No. 1 filed a suit for recovery of a certain amount of money based on a handnote against the petitioner and Opposite Party No. 2. The handnote is said to have been executed by the deceased husband of the petitioner. The defence of the petitioner is that the handnote in question is a forged document. This handnote was sent to a Handwriting Expert at Simla, who gave his opinion that it was a forged document. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for examination of the said expert at Simla on commission through the Simla court. The plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 objected to the issue of commission and made a prayer that, in case a commission was issued, it should be issued on payment of cost to the plaintiff for taking his lawyers to Simla. The learned Munsif allowed the prayer of the Petitioner for examination of the expert on commission by the Simla court, but directed her to deposit a sum of Rs. 400 as bring the cost of the plaintiff for taking his lawyers to Simla. Being aggrieved by this portion of the order of the Court below, the present application has been filed by the defenda