Advocate Commissioner To Record ... vs Heard Learned Counsel For The ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3458 AP

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1108 of 2023

ORDER:-

      Aggrieved by the order, dated 20.01.2023, passed in I.A.

No. 524 of 2022 in O.S.No.83 of 2021 whereby the petition filed

under Order 26 Rule 9 and Section 151 of CPC to appoint an

Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the petitioner

was dismissed, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.


      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the respondent.

The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No.83 of 2021 on the

file of the learned Junior Civil Judge - Cum - Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Alamuru. The suit was filed for

cancellation of registered settlement deed. The suit now stood

posted for trial. At that stage, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the

petition to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record his

evidence. It is stated that he is aged about 81 years and he is

suffering from age related ailments and he could not attend

before the Court. Therefore, he has requested to appoint an

Advocate Commissioner to record his evidence.

The said petition was resisted by the

respondent/defendant stating that the petitioner is hale and

healthy and he did not file any evidence to prove that he is

suffering from ill-health because of which he could not attend

the Court and thereby prayed for dismissal of the petition.

The trial Court held that the photographs which are filed

by the respondent shows that the petitioner is moving on a

motorcycle and as such, it cannot be said that he is not in a

position to attend the Court. So, relying on the judgment

rendered in the case of Qamar Begum v. Habee Bunnisa1, the

trial court has dismissed the said Petition.

The photographs which are produced before the trial

Court are also now placed on record before this Court by the

learned counsel for the respondent. It is evident from it that the

petitioner though aged about 81 years has been comfortably

and conveniently driving the scooter and travelling in the town.

Therefore, it cannot be said that he is unable to attend the

Court because of any ailment as alleged by him in the petition.

He cannot seek appointment of Advocate Commissioner on false

ground of suffering from ailments when in fact he has been

freely moving while driving a scooter in the town. Therefore, the

impugned order of the trial Court is perfectly sustainable under

law and it calls for no interference in this Civil Revision Petition.

Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No

costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

______________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 14.07.2023 AKN/DSV

2007 (2) ALT 1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1108 of 2023

Date: 14-07-2023

AKN/DSV