Court can permit evidence through commission if a litigant is physically unable to attend court.

01. By this petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/defendant has challenged the order dated 25.07.2025 (Annexure P/1) passed by the trial Court Court whereby upon accepting the compromise arrived between the parties which was brought on record by way of an application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been dismissed.

02. Facts of the case, in short, are that Respondent No. 1 /Plaintiff filed a Civil Suit Case No. RCSA No. 697/2025 against the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the sale deed through which the brothers of the petitioner sold, the agricultural lands (suit lands). In the said suit parties came to amicable settlement in respect of the suit lands and also filed an application for compromise decree under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code . Thereafter, the said suit is Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH fixed for the deposition of the parties accordingly statement of respondent No. 1/plaintiff has been recorded and the case was fixed for petitioner/defendant No. 1's statement, but petitioner/defendant No. 1 who is near about 88 years old due to her old age-related health issues she is unable to walk, therefore, it is not possible for her to appear in the court to record compromise statement. Afterthat, the parties filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 1 of the CPC to record her statement through commission in which respondent No. 1/plaintiff gave no objection, but the learned trail Court dismissed the application. Hence the petitioner preferred this petition against the impugned order.

03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, unjust, and against the settled principles of law. The trial Court has failed to consider that the personal presence of a physically disabled or elderly litigant can be exempted and her evidence can be lawfully recorded through commission, especially when it pertains to record the statement for compromise. He also submits that the rejection of the application will cause significant prejudice to both parties and lead to an unnecessary prolonging of the litigation, despite a genuine compromise being arrived. On these grounds, learned counsel has prayed that the application be allowed and impugned order be set aside.

04. Learned counsel for the respondent has expressed his no objection on behalf of respondents.

05. Heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINDESH

06. The record shows that during pendency of the suit, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties which was brought on record by them by way of an application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC. The said compromise has been taken on record by the trial Court and accepted by it, but application filed under Order XXVI Rule 1 of CPC has been rejected without assigning any specific ground for rejection.

07. For ready reference, Order 26 Rule 1 of CPC, is reproduced below:

"1. Cases in which Court may issue commission to examine witness - Any Court may in any suit issue a commission for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person resident within the local limits of its jurisdiction who is exempted under this Code from attending the Court or who is from sickness or infirmity unable to attend it :..."

08. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that the present petition is allowed and impugned order deserves to be and is hereby quashed.

09. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and stands disposed of.