This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the unsuccessful respondent/plaintiff (`the plaintiff’, for short) is directed against the orders dated 11-04-2012 of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District made in I.A.No.3247 of 2011 in O.S.No.7 of 2008 filed under Order III Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 119 of the Code of Civil Procedure (`the Code’, for short) allowing the request of the petitioners/ defendants to accord permission to cross examine the proposed witness, a handwriting expert by another handwriting expert, Mr. Ashok Kashyap, in whose favour special power of attorney was executed.

2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of this revision petition, in brief, are as follows: “The plaintiff had filed I.A.No.3096 of 2011 under Order XXVI Rule 4(1)(a)(c) of the Code for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of a hand writing expert, Mr.V.Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P. Forensic Science Laboratories, Red Hills, Hyderabad, stating inter alia that exhibit A1 promissory note was examined by the said expert and that the said expert had furnished an opinion in respect of the disputed signature/s on the said exhibit and that, therefore, it is just and necessary to appoint a commissioner for recording his evidence’. The defendants filed counter in the said application filed by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants had also filed an application in I.A.3247 of 2011 for according permission to them to have the expert witness, who furnished the disputed opinion, to be cross examined by another duly empowered expert by name Mr.Ashok Kashyap contending inter alia that the services of the said expert are required for cross examining the expert who had furnished the opinion in the matter. The court below, on considering the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides, ordered both the petitions holding as under:-

I.A.No.3096/11 is also ordered and Sri G.V.S.Vinayaka Rao, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of Sri V.Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P.Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, at Hyderabad. The said Advocate Commissioner shall permit Mr.Ashok Kashyap, another expert to cross-examine the said witness on behalf of the defendants. ……..”

“Since the plaintiff wants to examine Mr.V.Muralidhar, Scientific Officer, A.P.Forensic Science Laboratories, Hyderabad, who examined Ex.A1 promissory note in proof of his report and since the defendants and their advocate are not experts in the particular subject and since the defendants have also executed Special Power of Attorney authorizing Mr.Ashok Kashyap who is another hand-writing expert, the defendants can be permitted to cross-examine the proposed witness by Mr. Ashok Kashyap another expert. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered.

In the result, I.A.No.3247/2001 is allowed.”

3. Though the application filed by the plaintiff was allowed and an advocate-commissioner was appointed to record the testimony of the expert, who furnished the opinion, the plaintiff having been aggrieved of the above said orders in I.A. 3247 of 2011 filed this revision petition.

4.I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both the sides. I have carefully examined the order impugned in the revision.

5.The short but important question is – ‘whether it is legally permissible to permit a party’s authorised agent other than an advocate to cross-examine the expert witness?’ And, if so, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case it is just and necessary to accord permission to the defendants to have the expert witness cross-examined by another expert?

6. In the case on hand the defendants had sought permission of the Trial Court to permit a named expert [Sri Ashok Kashyap, who is duly authorised by them] to cross examine another expert who is proposed to be examined as a witness in the suit since he had furnished his opinion in regard to the dispu