1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 702 of 2025 1 - Smt Sushmita Tripathi W/o Ashwin Shadangi Aged About 32 Years R/o E- 30, River Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, C.G. Present Address- Flat No. E-601, Aishwariyam Ventures, Akurdi, Pune, M.H. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Indusind Bank Through Branch Manager, Indusind Bank, Branch- Tilda Nevra, Distt.- Raipur, C.G. 2 - Indusind Bank Through Zonal Officer, Indusind Bank, Human Resources Department, Saket Building, 6th Floor, 44 Park Street, Kolkata, W.B. 3 - Indusind Bank Through Chief Executive Officer, 8th Floor, Tower-I, India Bulls Center, 841, S.K. Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai, M.H. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Rajnish Singh Baghel, Advocate For Respondents : None appears Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Judge-II to the First Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raipur, Tilda, in Civil Suit No.14-A/2023, whereby an application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected. 2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit -2- for a declaration that the order of termination dated 31.01.2019 be set aside, being unlawful and illegal, along with the relief of a permanent injunction. The petitioner pleaded that she was appointed as an Associate Manager under the respondents vide order dated 03.11.2016, and at the relevant time, she was posted at Branch Tilda, District Raipur. It is further pleaded that on account of some allegations, an order of termination of services was issued by the respondent authorities on 31.01.2019. It is also contended that the appeal was preferred against the said order before the Appellate Authority on 24.02.2019, but till date, the same has not been decided. 3. The defendants filed a written statement and denied the plaint averments. Learned Trial Court framed issues, and the case was set for evidence before the learned Trial Court. 4. The petitioner filed her examination-in-chief under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC along with an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC for the appointment of a Commissioner to record her evidence on Commission on the ground that she is a mother of three years old child and staying at Pune (Maharashtra) and it would be very difficult for her to attend the hearing of the case to record evidence. 5. The respondents filed a reply to the said application. 6. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 07.07.2025 rejected the application on the ground that the appointment of a Commissioner can be issued to examine a person who is unable to attend the Court on account of sickness or infirmity. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the provisions of Order 26 of CPC are not confined to recording evidence on sickness or infirmity; rather, a Commission can be issued to record 3 evidence of a person who has some personal problems. He would further submit that, according to the provisions of Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC, any person who is a resident beyond the local limits of jurisdiction, a Commission can be issued for his or her examination. He would contend that the learned Court below ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is a mother of three, a three-year-old child, and it would be troublesome for her to travel from Pune (Maharashtra) to Tilda (C.G.) to record her evidence. He would further contend that there is no one to take care of her son. He would also contend that the husband of the petitioner is a Software Engineer, who is scheduled to visit a foreign nation in the course of his work. He would pray to set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court dated 07.07.2025 and to allow the application moved under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the record. 9. Order 26 of the CPC deals with commissions. Order 26 Rule 1 of the CPC describes cases in which the Court may issue a commission to examine a witness. The same is reproduced herein 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 [Provided that a commission for examination on interrogatories shall not be issued unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks it necessary so to do.” This provision makes it clear that the Commission for the -4- examination on interrogatories shall not be issued unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks it necessary. 10. Order 26 Rule 4 of the CPC describes the persons for whose examination a Commission may be issued. The Commission may be issued for the examination on interrogatories or otherwise of any person resident beyond the local limits of its jurisdiction; any person who is about to leave such limits and any person in the service of the Government, who cannot, in the opinion of the Court, attend without detriment to the public service. According to the proviso, the Court shall not issue a Commission for the examination without recording reasons in this regard. 11. Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC deals with the Commission to make local investigations. According to this provision, if in any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a Commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: This provision makes it clear that for the examination of witnesses, the Commission cannot be issued as per this provision. 12. Section 75 of the CPC deals with the power of the Court to issue commissions. Section 75 of the CPC is reproduced herein below:- “S.75 Power of Court to issue commissions- Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may issue a commission - (a) to examine any person; 5 (b) to make a local investigation; (c) to examine or adjust accounts; or (d) to make a partition; (e) to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation; (f) to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit; (g) to perform any ministerial act.]” As per this Section, the Court may issue a Commission to examine any person described in the section; to make a local investigation, etc. 13. Section 132 of CPC deals with the exemption of certain women from personal appearance. Section 132(1) says that the women who, according to the customs and manners of the country, ought not to be compelled to appear in public, shall be exempt from personal appearance in Court. A conjoint reading of Sections 75 and 132 of the CPC would make it clear that the Court may issue a Commission to examine a woman, if such a woman, according to the customs and manners of the country, cannot be compelled to appear in public. 14. In the present case, the petitioner is a young and educated lady; she has filed a civil suit challenging the order of termination and seeking a permanent injunction. She has been permitted by the learned Trial Court to move an application to record her evidence through video conferencing. Further, the order to appoint a Commission to record evidence cannot be passed in a routine manner. The grounds raised by the petitioner do not fall within the purview of Order 26 Rule 1, Order -6- 26 Rule 4 and Sections 75 and 132 of the CPC; therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. 15. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha