HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2536 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bomineni Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 8. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.9 to 12.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 15.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.114 of 2022 (old O.S.No.143 of 2012) by the Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda.

3. The petitioners are plaintiff Nos.3 and 5 to 9 in O.S.No.114 of 2022 (old O.S.No.143 of 2012) filed by them for declaration and perpetual injunction. The suit is posted for trial. Defendant No.10 has filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as D.W.1. Whereas, learned trail Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record cross-examination of D.W.1. Learned Advocate – Commissioner has filed report stating that the cross-examination of D.W.1 could not be completed as he stated that plaintiff No.3 raised objection for continuation of the cross-examination of D.W.1 and requested to continue cross-examination in the Court. Learned Advocate- Commissioner has stated that there was frequent interference and disturbance by the plaintiff No.3 though the counsel is present and therefore, he could not complete cross-examination of D.W.1.

4. The said fact was brought to the notice of the trial Court and vide docket order dated 15.07.2025, learned trial Court observed that once the Advocate Commissioner is appointed by the Court, he shall execute the warrant and file report. Parties cannot take right on the proceedings of the Commissioner and if the same is allowed, the very object of the provision in the CPC for recording the evidence by the Commissioner would be defeated. The plaintiff No.3 was advised to cooperate with the Commissioner and see that the evidence of D.W.1 is recorded without any disturbance by the plaintiff No.3. In case, it is required, the evidence can be recorded in the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff and keep the plaintiff No.3 away from the place of recording of evidence. Only to give a fair chance to the plaintiff to complete the cross-examination, this opportunity is being given. If the attitude of the plaintiff No.3 continues the same, on filing of report of the Commissioner, the Court will treat that there is no cross-

examination on the plaintiff side. The matter is adjourned to

31.07.2025.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/plaintiff Nos.3,5 to 9 filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that to avoid the said disturbance, a direction may be given to trial Court to record cross-examination of D.W.1 in the open Court by the Trial Court. With regard to other witnesses on defendants side, let the trial Court take a decision either to appoint an Advocate-

Commissioner or to record their evidence in the open Court.

7. In the aforesaid facts, more particularly, the report of the Advocate-Commissioner would reveal that there is disturbance and interference from plaintiff No.3 while Advocate-Commissioner recording cross-examination of D.W.1. The impugned docket order would also reveal the said fact. Therefore, in the given circumstances, it is not proper to record the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the Advocate –Commissioner. He has already expressed his inability in recording cross-examination of D.W.1. Thus, there is loss of confidence of Advocate Commissioner on plaintiff No.3 and vice versa.

8. In the light of the same, considering the report of the Commissioner, cross-examination of D.W.1 was done in part and posted for further cross-examination, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda to record further cross-examination of D.W.1 in the open Court. The suit is of the year 2012. Therefore, lea