THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3052 of 2010 Dated:06.08.2010 Between: Sri A.Satyanarayana Vara Prasad, And others. ….Petitioners And Sri Pulipaka Venkatachalam, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3052 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners are defendant Nos.3, 6 and 7 in O.S.No.42 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, filed by the first respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- based on a promissory note dated 09.03.2006 allegedly executed by the sister of the first petitioner. The suit is ripe for trial. The first respondent filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. He then filed I.A.No.497 of 2010 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination and reexamination at his house. The ground urged is that he is suffering from hypertension and is not able to walk properly. Having regard to the factual background, the Court below allowed the said application and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination of the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioners does not dispute that Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, confers discretion on the Court either to permit the cross examination to be recorded on commission or direct the parties to appear before him for recording the evidence. There is no such requirement compelling the witness to come to the Court premises for the purpose of cross examination. When a person is not able to come to the Court, it is a valid consideration for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording the cross examination at the place where the party resides. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.08.2010 vs