IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.836 OF 2010 Between: M.Anji Reddy …Petitioner A n d B.Suguna Bai and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.836 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 01-02-2010 in I.A.No.369 of 2009 in O.S.No.100 of 2002, on the file of the V-Additional District Judge (FTC), R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein under order XXVI Rule 1 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the first respondent (P.W.1) at H.No.2-2- 647/273/4, Srinivas Nagar Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad, was allowed and Advocate Commissioner was appointed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit against the petitioner herein and others for partition. The petitioner herein was impleaded as 8th defendant. When the trial of the suit was taken up, the respondents filed I.A.No.369 of 2009 for appointment of Commissioner to record the evidence of the first respondent herein B.Suguna Bai at her residence on the ground that she was suffering from brain tumor. The petitioner herein filed a counter opposing the said application and contending that as seen from the medical prescription filed, the medicines prescribed to the first respondent herein were only for blood pressure and cervical spondylitis is a common disease and the same does not prevent the first respondent to attend the Court. The trial Court, by the impugned docket order, appointed Advocate Commissioner by name Sri M.Bharavi to record the evidence of the first respondent herein as P.W.1. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/D-8 filed the present civil revision petition. 4. The main contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner/D-8 is that no medical certificate as such was filed in support of the plea that the first respondent herein was suffering from any brain disease. In the civil revision petition, the first respondent filed a counter- affidavit and produced a copy of the medical certificate dated 29-03-2010 issued by Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Polytrauma Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein it is certified that the first respondent aged 64 years is under treatment of Dr.D.Sreedhar, Neuro Physician for the last two years for HTN + Multiple Tuberculoma in Brain Stem and she is under treatment on OPD basis and requires periodical medical checkup. It is further testified that presently she is not in a position to move all her limbs and not in a position to walk. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even as per this medical certificate, the first respondent is not hospitalized. It is to be seen that the medical certificate produced by the first respondent prima facie shows that she is suffering from a brain disease and is undergoing treatment and presently she is not in a position to move all her limbs also and not in a position to walk. Even if she is not hospitalized, it is prima facie shown that she is virtually bed ridden and confined to her residence in view of the serious ailment she is suffering from. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that there are as many as 50 defendants in the suit who are represented by several advocates and it would be difficult for all of them to cross-examine P.W.1 at her residence. It is the inability of the witness to attend the Court which is to be taken into consideration for appointing a commissioner, but not the convenience of the advocates appearing on either side. Further, the learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that it is not as though all the defendants are contesting and it was only the petitioner/D-8 who alone is aggrieved by the impugned order, but not others. 7. In the circumstances, having regard to the fact that the first respondent is shown to be suffering from a serious ailment of brain disease restricting her mobility, the impugned order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to record her evidence at her residence is not liable to be interfered with, as the same does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim suspension stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd March, 2010 Lrkm.