The central legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of a Local Commissioner for recording evidence should not be routine, especially when there is opposition or it is deemed unwarranted, and essential aspects of the trial should not be routinely delegated to a Local Commissioner.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This petition impugns an order dated 06.11.2013 of the Additional District Judge (ADJ) which appointed a Local Commissioner for recording of evidence in the Court room between 4 and 6 pm on six consecutive dates. The order was passed in the presence of counsel and an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was directed to be paid to the Local Commissioner (including stationery and typing charges) for each sitting and Rs. 400/- as diet money to the Reader who would sit in Court after court hours to assist in the proceedings. While dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 18 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC, the subsequent order dated 07.02.2014 confirms the previous one. By the said application, the petitioner had pleaded that (i) the appointment of the Local Commissioner was suo moto by the Court and was not sought by either of the parties; (ii) it expressed their concern and desire that the evidence of the witnesses be recorded in the Court in the presence of the learned Judge under Order 18 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure; (iii) that the defendants too had so desired by expressing their 'no objection' to the aforesaid application; (iv) that appointment of Local Commissioner could be done only under Order 26 when the occasion and justification for it arises and, finally (v) that the additional costs towards Local Commissioner's fees and diet money was unwarranted. Therefore, the petitioner argued, the order of appointment of Local Commissioner ought to be set aside.

2. The learned ADJ having considered the application reasoned that: (i) that the suit was pending since 2007 and despite the passage of nearly six years, recording of evidence had not even begun, (ii) therefore, it would be in the fitness of things and would lend expedience to the disposal of the suit if the evidence was recorded by the Local Commissioner; (iii) that the order appointing the Local Commissioner clearly and specifically mentioned as to how the evidence would be recorded and that in case of any discrepancy both the parties could specifically point out to the Court so that subsequent remedial measures could be taken so as to ensure fair recording of the evidence by the Local Commissioner; (iv) the legislature has stipulated the statutory provision to facilitate expeditious trial of cases; (v) the only objection to the appointment of the Local Commissioner that counsel could have was that they would have to be in the court room till 6 o'clock, which was a trivial objection; (vi) it was incumbent upon lawyers in their professional duty, to keep in mind the welfare of the litigants and they ought to be primarily concerned with the early and timely disposal of pending litigation; (vii) it would be in the interest of the parties to have the evidence recorded on five dates consecutively which otherwise in court could take years to complete, often because of adjournments sought by counsel, which in turn lead to un-warranted delays in the disposal of the cases, (viii) thus adding to the burden of pendency of cases in the courts; and (ix) the recording would be done in the court room itself during the period when the Presiding Officer would be busy dictating judgments in the chamber and the clerical staff would be available in the Court, thus there would be optimum utilization of the infrastructure and (x) this endeavour should be welcomed by the Bar in the interest of their clients as well as in the quick disposal of the cases.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the ratio in T. Srinivasa Rao v. T. Venkata Rangaiah AIR 2007 AP 1 to contend that the appointment of Local Commissioner should not be resorted to almost as a matter of course. The judgment held inter alia, that:

"6. Time and again this Court cautioned the trial Courts, not to appoint Commissioners for recording cross-examination of witness, as a matter of course. The effect of permitting the witnesses to file affidavits in lieu of chief-examination, resulting