The revision petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.547 of 2011 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor, and the revision respondent is the sole plaintiff.

2. The suit filed is for the relief of specific performance of the contract for sale dated 23.10.2010 and in the alternative for refund of the advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from the sale agreement till date of its recovery with costs of suit and for such other reliefs. The plaint schedule property consists of total Ac.1-94 cents of Kondepalle Gram Panchayat, GD Nellore Mandal, Chittoor District in S.Nos.62, 70/3A, 70/4, 71, 72/1, 73/7, 73/9, 99 & 106 out of the full extents put together supra. Along with plaint filed in November 2011 the documents filed are sale agreement supra, legal notice, reply, rejoinder, reply and proof of service. The defendants contest is that the suit sale agreement is a rank forgery and it was never executed and not signed by the defendants and they received no advance and never agreed to sell the property or any portion thereof much less to plaintiff and it is a spur document created by husband of plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff after knowledge about the registered sale dated 26.06.2011 executed by the 1st defendant and his wife in favour of the 2nd defendant-V. Chinchu Naidu for Rs.2,70,000/- having received consideration pursuant to the sale and put in possession and because of family differences between the plaintiffs husband and the 1st defendant in respect of some dry land, plaintiffs husband created the so called agreement to black mail the 1st defendant and other contentions. The suit from the respective pleadings and issues was in the progress of trial. The plaintiff as PW.1 filed in chief examination and it is coming for cross examination of PW.1 from 01.09.2016 where chief affidavit was taken on oath and Exs.A1 to A13 marked and after filing of chief affidavit a petition for appointment of advocate commissioner filed and on 01.09.2016 one P. Balasubramanyam, advocate is appointed as commissioner to record cross examination of PW.1 and fee of Rs.600/- payable by both parties. Subsequently the commissioner neither executed the warrant nor returned when the matter was so coming and said advocate P. Balasubramanyam warrant is cancelled and another advocate G. Saleem is appointed in his place to execute the warrant, which is also with no progress. It is said commissioner appointment for cross examination of PW.1 impugned in the revision.

3. The grounds of revision are that the impugned order of the court below is contrary to law and probabilities of the case and the approach in appointment of advocate commissioner suo motu is unsustainable and is against the settled principles of law that advocate commissioner cannot be appointed suo motu that too where substantial issues have to be decided and from the contest by the defendants of the said sale agreement dated 23.10.2010 is a rank forgery and not signed and they did not receive any consideration and never agreed to sell and thereby the impugned order of the Court appointing advocate commissioner is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners reiterated the same and the learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order.

4. In the course of hearing several aspects on the scope of suo motu appointing of advocate commissioner raised as to how to accept an affidavit in chief examination if any portion is inadmissible on the inception of affidavit averments on the exercise of oath and the security to the documents if at all to give to the commissioner for purpose of recording evidence etc., by both parties requesting to pass a detailed order touching all these aspects to solve the day to day problems in this regard.

5. Heard and perused the material on record and the impugned order in the grounds of revision and the relevant provisions and propositions.

6. Before coming to the factual matrix further in answering the li