HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2546 of 2011 Date:05.08.2011 Between: Shaik Hussain and five others. ..... Petitioners AND Shaik Abeda Begum .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri V.Raghu Counsel for Respondent : ------ The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 13.06.2010, in I.A.No.322 of 2010 in O.S.No.294 of 2007 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kodad. The petitioners are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for permanent injunction. The respondent filed I.A.No.322 of 2010 in the said suit under Order 18 Rule 4 read with Order 26 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record her evidence at the residence of her father. In support of her application, she has mentioned two grounds, namely, that she is a pardanashin lady and that, she was pregnant. The petitioners filed counter-affidavit opposing the said application, wherein it was formally denied that the respondent is a Pardanashin lady. They have also stated that though at the time of filing of the application, the respondent was pregnant, by the time of filing of the counter-affidavit, she has already delivered a baby, who was six months old. The Court below while holding that the respondent is a pardanashin lady allowed the application and appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to record the further chief and cross-examination of the respondent at the residence of her father. At the hearing, Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioners, placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in T.Srinivasa Rao V. T.Venkata Rangaiah and others[1], wherein it was held that the trial Courts cannot appoint Commissioners for recording cross-examination of witnesses as a matter of course and that, a proper discretion needs to be exercised in this regard. In my opinion, while there can be no two opinions about the view taken by this Court in the judgment supra, the order of the Court below needs to be examined with reference to the facts pleaded by the parties. Even though the petitioners formally denied that the respondent is a pardanashin lady, it is not in dispute that the respondent belongs to the Muslim community in which, ordinarily, pardanashin system is still in vogue. The Court below accepting the plea of the respondent that she is a pardanashin lady allowed the application. In my opinion, the discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3609 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 05th August, 2011 DR [1] 2006(5) ALD 823