1965 June 3 ANDREAS D. KALIMERAS v. SOCRATES GEOKGIOU [VASS1LIADES, MUNIR, JOSEPHIDES, J J . ] ANDREAS D. KALIMERAS, Appellant-Plaintiff, v. SOCRATIS GEORGHIOU, Respondent· Defendant. (Civil Appeal No. 4519) Practice—Evidence—Evidence on commission—Appeal from the dismissal of plaintiff's applicationfor an order that the evidence of certain unnamed witnesses may be taken on commission abroad—Principles on which a Court may allow the taking of evidence on commission are well established in Cyprus.—Restatement of their substance. Evidence—Evidence on Commission abroad. The Court dismissing the appeal from the Order offt Judge dismissing the plaintiff's application for an «aaVr «feat the evidence of certain uanamed witnesses may be taken on commission abroad. Held,
(1)the principles on which a Court mayallow tfeetaking of evidence on commission are well established and tfcay were summarised in two reported cases in Cyprus : Power v.Meha (No. 1)
(1959),24C.L.R. 254 ; &r\aPowerv. Beha(No. 2) $459) 24 C.L.R. 266. I do not pMpose going into these «wiaaipks in extenso, except to state Aeir «instance : In w y «Me the applicant must show that the proposed evidence reasonably be obtained except by the method he while in cases where it is ebvtowily desirable that tfee should be seen in Court, he must show a degree of in producing the witness atafeatawriod which amounts tical inability to do so (24 C.L.R. at p. 258).
(2)The application rawt fee Supported by a full showing that the case involves a real issue for the try ; that the application is aaade bona fide ; that the tion abroad will be effective ;that the witnesses to be are material and their evidence admissible ; and that there is some good reason why the witnesses cannot be examined here. And, it should also be borne in mind that the provision for the taking of evidence on commission is " for the purposes of justice ", which means for the purposes of justice between the plaintiff and the defendant. 143
(3)Looking at the affidavit in support of the plaintiff's application in the present case, one cannoteven see thenames ofthe proposedwitnesses, letalonethe substanceorthemateria lity of their evidence. This is sufficient todispose of theplain tiff's application without considering the other points which arenecessary tobeproved before anorderfor evidenceon com mission may be granted, and the District Judge rightly dis missed his application.
(4)For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissedwithcosts. Cases referred to : Power v, Beha (No. 1)
(1959), 24 C.L.R. 254 ; Power v. Beha (No. 2)
(1959), 24 C.L.R. 266. Appeal. Appeal against the order of the District Court of Nicosia (Izzet, D J . ) dated the24th March, 1965 (Action No. 4883/63) dismissing plaintiff's application for an order that the evidence of certain unnamed witnesses may be taken on commission abroad. A. Georghiades, for the appellant. X. Clerides,for the respondent. VASSILIADES, J.: The judgment of the Court will be delivered by Mr. Justice Josephides. JOSEPHIDES, J.: This is an appeal from the order of a District Judge dismissing the plaintiff's application for an order that the evidence of certain unnamed witnesses may be taken on commission abroad. The principles on which a Court may allow the taking οί evitkince on commission are well established and they "waee·Mwamnrised in two repotted cases in Cyprus : Power v: Bekm (No. 1)
(1959), 24 C.L.R. 254 ; and Power v. Beha (No. 2)
(1959), 24 C.L.R. 266. I do not propose going iM»tkea*principlesinextenso, except tostatetheirsubstance : In every case the applicant must show that the proposed evidence cannot reasonably be obtained except by the method he proposes ; while in cases where it is obviously desirable that the witness should be seen in Court, he must show a degree of difficulty in producing the witness at that period which amounts to practical inability to do so (24 C.L.R. at page 258). 149 1965 June 3 ANDREAS D. K A L I ΜERAS v. SocKATES GEORCIOU 1965 June 3 ANDREAS D. KALIMERAS v. SOCRATES GEORGIOI; Theapplication mustbesupported byafull affidavit showing that the case involves a real issue for the Court to try ; that the application is made bona fide ; that the examination abroad will be effective ; that the witnesses to be examined are material and their evidence admissible ; and that there is somegood reasonwhythewitnesses cannot be examined here. And, it should also be borne in mind that the provision for the taking of evidence on commission is " for the purposes of justice ", which means for the purposes of justice between the plaintiff and the defendant. Looking at the affidavit in support of the plaintiff's application in the present case, one cannot even see the names of the proposed witnesses, let alone the substance or the materiality of their evidence. This is sufficient to dispose of the plaintiff's application without considering the other points which are necessary to be proved before an order for evidence on commission may be granted, and the District Judge rightly dismissed his application. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed with costs. 150