( 1 ) IN a suit instituted by the plaintiff non-applicant Madanlal against Rambux for the recovery of the price of goods alleged to have been sold by the plaintiff, the learned Civil Judge, First Class, Neemuch, while granting the prayer of the defendant-applicant that his own statement be recorded on commission at hyderabad, where he resided, directed the defendant to pay first to the plaintiff the expenses that he might incur in going to Hyderabad for cross-examining him. In this revision petition, the grievance of the defendant is that the Court had no power to direct the defendant to deposit the expenses of the plaintiff as a condition of the issue of commission.

( 2 ) THE question that is raised in this petition is whether the words "expenses of commission which occur in Order 26, Rule 15, C. P. C. include the deposit of expenses of other party. In Namdeo v. Union of India, Civil Revision No. 385/53, 1954 Nag LJ (SN) No. 285 (A), Choudhuri, J. has, following Abdurahiman v. Muhammad Kasam, AIR 1949 Mad 490 (B) and Ghanshyam Das v. Krishturi Bala debi, AIR 1936 Pat 33 (C), held that the words "expenses of commission" include deposit of expenses of other party and