The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct cross-examination is a matter of judicial discretion, and the court will consider the circumstances of each case in making its decision.

ORDER:

The petitioner, who is a defendant in O.S.No.82 of

2017 on the file of the Learned III Additional District Judge, Tirupati, had moved I.A.No.60 of 2023 under the provisions of Order 26 Rules 1, 4(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record his Cross-Examination in Hyderabad city. This application is said to have been filed on the ground that the petitioner is looking after his aged mother who is 83 years old and the petitioner himself is suffering from various health issues due to which he is unable to come to Tirupati and the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record his Cross-Examination would not prejudice anybody.

<

2. The Trial Judge, dismissed the application, by an order dated 20.06.2023, holding that the conduct of the Cross-Examination by an Advocate Commissioner would entail huge expenditure to the respondent as she would have to come down to Hyderabad along with her counsel.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.

4. Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is unable to move down from Hyderabad on account of the fact that he has to take care of his aged mother and going to Tirupati and coming back to Hyderabad would be difficult for him. He would further submit that the Trial Court had dismissed the application only on the ground of unnecessary expenditure for the respondent and the same can be addressed by defraying the expenses of the respondent. He would submit that the petitioner is willing to defray all the expenditure of the respondent and her counsel which may be incurred by travelling from Tirupati to Hyderabad.

5. The ground raised by the petitioner relating to the fact that he has to take care of his aged mother and that he himself is suffering from health issues may not be sufficient to direct the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for conducting cross-examination in Hyderabad. To my mind, the ground raised by the petitioner would not be sufficient to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Trial Court. 6. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.

09.02.2024

BSM/MJA

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.200 of 2024

09.02.2024 BSM