1. Aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court allowing an application for the cross-examination of D.W.1 through an Advocate-Commissioner, the plaintiff has come up with the above revision petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.

3. The suit is one for specific performance of an agreement of sale. It is no doubt true that the suit is 16 years old. D.W.1 is also 60 years old.

4. After filing the chief-affidavit and appearing in Court on 18-4-2016, D.W.1 filed application for examining her through Advocate-Commissioner at Hyderabad on the ground of ill health. It was accepted by the Trial Court and the plaintiff is before me.

5. The impugned order is assailed on three grounds by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The first is that the suit has been prolonged for 16 years, under one pretext or the other and hence this is not a case where the discretionary remedy can be granted.

6. But I do not agree. The longevity of the litigation, is not a ground on which an application of this nature could be tested.

7. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demeanor of the witness has to be seen by the Court. But Order XXVI, Rule 4 C.P.C.