The plaintiff in O.S.No.85 of 2007 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, is before this Court aggrieved by the order dated 01.05.2015 passed by the Court below in I.A.No.13 of 2014 filed therein by the respondent-defendant. The said IA was filed under Order 18 Rule 4(3) CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the Assistant Manager-HR, ESI Software (India) Private Limited, Bangalore. By the order under revision, the Court below allowed the IA and appointed an Advocate Commissioner as prayed for. The suit, O.S.No.85 of 2007, was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.05.2006 alleged to have been executed by the respondent-defendant. The plea of the respondent-defendant in his written statement was that he did not execute the said agreement of sale and that he was at Bangalore on the day this agreement was alleged to have been executed. He therefore wanted to examine the Assistant Manage of his employer organization at Bangalore and filed the subject application.

No doubt, the application filed by the respondent-defendant was under the wrong provision of law as Order 18 Rule 4(3) CPC was not relev