The learned Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam has construed the expression “expenses of the commission” in Order XXVI, rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code as including the expenses to be defrayed by the opposite party to the one applying for the issue of a commission for proceeding from the locality where the court is situate to the place where the commissioner is to function. There is no direct authority on the point except the observations of my learned brother Mack, J., in Abdurahim Settu v. Muhammad Kasam Settu1, where the learned Judge observes that the “expenses of the commission” can be made to include expenses of the other parties to the litigation and can in suitable cases be ordered to be deposited by the party at whose instance the commission was taken out. It seems to me that this proposition has been very widely stated. The phrase “expenses of the commission” in ordinary parlance would mean only what the commissioner has to spend for summoning witnesses and for other incidental expenses relating to the examination of the witnesses before him. No authority has been placed before me where the words have been construed in such wide terms. Moreover the Civil Rules of