Krishnan Pandalai, J.
1. The District Munsif was wrong in refusing to issue a commission on the mere ground that the distance to Trivandrum where the witnesses reside is less than 200 miles from the Court. Trivandrum is a foreign territory. The rule applies to distances in British India. I am not aware of any law by which witnesses in Native States which have made arrangements for mutual service of processes with British India can be compelled to obey these processes, i.e., punished if they fail to do so. The arrangement for mutual service of processes is made in pursuance of Section 29 and Order 5, Rule 26, Civil Procedure Code. Though such processes may be served as if they had been issued by territorial Courts, the effect of non-compliance is a different matter. If, therefore, the Trivandrum witnesses refused to attend on service of summons, the only way to take their evidence, if necessary, was by commission. It appears from the reply affidavit that the witnesses were summoned to appear but did not do so. For these reasons the District Munsif should now issue a commission for the examination of witnesses Nos. 1 to 6. The petitioner and his agent, witnesses Nos. 7 and 8, must appear before the Lower Court and be examined there. The order of the District Munsif is varied accordingly.
2. The petitioner has won and must have his costs of this petition.