In this case, in holding that he need not grant the application under Order 26, rule 4, Civil Procedure Code, for the issue of commission for the examination of a witness, residing outside the limits fixed by Order 16, rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, the learned District Munsif appears to have missed the point of the judicial discretion involved. As Wallace, J., pointed out in Jagannatha v. Sarathambal1, and there is nothing in the later decisions of this Court to contravene this dictumwhere a witness is not under the control of the party asking for the commission, and he resides beyond the limit fixed under Order 16, rule 19, Civil Procedure Code, it would be a proper exercise of judicial discretion to issue the commission. The remarks of Jagadisan, J., in Ramakrishna Kulyant Rai v. Hardcastle & Co.2, relate both to a party as well as a witness, and the learned Judge does emphasise that the discretion vested in a Court must be exercised in a judicial manner. Certainly, with regard to a party, and this appears to be corroborated by the observations in Muhammad Zackaria v. Abdul Karim Rowther3, it would be an unusual privilege to exempt the party from attendance in Court, mer