IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1635 OF 2011 Between: D.V.S.S.N.G.Raju …Petitioner A n d P.Raghunadha Raju ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1635 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29.03.2011 in I.A.No.217 of 2010 in O.S.No.661 of 2006, on the file of the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the defendant, under order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for re-call of P.W.1 for cross- examination at any place other than the house of plaintiff at Vizianagaram, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein, the plaintiff, filed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner/defendant. When the matter was taken up for trial, the plaintiff filed an application seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to record his evidence at his house at Vizianagaram on the ground that on account of old age and ailments he is unable to move out. The interim order, however, shows that at the time of filing of chief-affidavit, the plaintiff was present in the Court. However, as the defendant stated no objection, the Advocate-Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of P.W.1 at his house at Vizianagaram. Thereafter, the defendant filed the present application I.A.No.217 of 2010 seeking cross-examination of P.W.1 elsewhere other than the house of P.W.1 on the ground that he apprehends embarrassment if he goes to the house of P.W.1. 4. It is to be noted that the petitioner/defendant has not gone to the house of P.W.1 in connection with cross- examination of P.W.1 so far. What is expressed by him is only an apprehension. The learned Advocate- Commissioner would certainly take necessary steps to safeguard the interest of both parties and see that no embarrassment is caused to either of the parties. If, however, the learned Advocate-Commissioner finds that the situation in the house of P.W.1 is not conducive for recording cross-examination, he is permitted to record the cross-examination of P.W.1 in the premises of the Bar Association at Vizianagaram. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dismissing the application, is set aside and the petitioner/defendant is directed to cooperate with the Advocate-Commissioner in recording the cross- examination of P.W.1 at the house of P.W.1 and the plaintiff P.W.1 is also directed not to create any embarrassing situation and to ensure that recording of the cross-examination is smooth. The Advocate- Commissioner is, however, at liberty to shift the venue of cross-examination to the Bar Association, Vizinagaram in the event of apprehension of any untoward incident in the house of P.W.1. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 1st August, 2009 Note: CC in two days. Lrkm.