This case presents another illustration, as to how unsafe, it is to entrust the functions of the Court, to an Advocate-Commissioner, indiscriminately.

2. The petitioners filed O.S.No.278 of 2001 in the Court of XII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the respondent. The trial of the suit commenced. The recording of the evidence on behalf of the respondent, is in progress. She filed her affidavit in lieu of chiefexamination. The trial Court had appointed an AdvocateCommissioner, to record her cross-examination. The AdvocateCommissioner, submitted a report, dated 17.04.2006, stating that the respondent, as DW.1, has stated that she did not sign upon Exs.A.3 and A.4 and that she has gone to the extent of denying her signatures on the vakalat and the written statement also. He further complained that the respondent refused to sign the depositions and offered to put thumb impression on it.

3. The trial Court took note of these developments and passed a detailed order, dated 26.07.2006. It ultimately directed the learned counsel for the respondent in the trial Court, to file an affidavit as to whether the vakalat and written statement presented by him, were signed by the respondent or not. The respondent was also directed to appear before the Court on 07.08.2006. In compliance with the directions issued by the trial Court, the counsel filed an affidavit stating that vakalat and written statement were signed by the respondent. The respondent appeared before the Court and stated that she signed on them. Her signatures were taken on a white paper in the open Court. The Court directed the continuation of trial and posted the matter to 24.08.2006. The petitioners challenge the order, dated 26.07.2006.

4. Sri D.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that on account of the procedure adopted by the trial Court, the very sanctity of the cross-examination recorded before the Advocate-Commissioner is lost and that the respondent was given an opportunity to fill the lacunae, that may have been noticed in her deposition before the Commissioner.

5. This Court is of the view that the situation that led to passing of orders, referred to above, is on account of the indiscriminate appointment of Advocate-Commissioners, to record crossexamination of witnesses, without verifying the actual necessity. Neither the witness suffered from any disability nor her residence is at a long distance from the Court. If one compares the version presented by the Advocate-Commissioner on the one hand, and the facts spoken to by the witness directly before the Court, on the other, it becomes evident that either of them have not presented the correct facts before the court. The witness has stated before the Court that she filed vakalat and written statement, and engaged an advocate. She signed on the papers, as directed by the Court. Her counsel also filed an affidavit. The version presented by the Advocate-Commissioner did not accord with this. Almost a situation arose where the Commissioner was to face crossexamination about the correctness of his report.

6. Examination of witnesses and recording of evidence is recognized, as one of the most important steps, in the process of adjudication under the Indian Legal System. The pleadings of the parties are presented in written form. It is difficult to take them on their face value. The differences between the parties can be both, as to the facts that gave rise to the litigation, and the legal principles that govern them. The very fact that one of them had approached the court, discloses that his point of view was not accepted by the other party. The task before the court is to ascertain the facts that gave rise to the dispute, and thereafter, to apply the relevant principles of law. Howsoever attractive the pleadings may be, they cannot be accepted, unless they are spoken to, and established through recognized means.

7. In the changed scenario,