THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3150 OF 2009 DATED: 20-11-2009 Between: M/s Ramakrishna. ..... PETITIONER And Medapalli Vijayalakshmi & 3 others. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 11-09-2008, in O.S.No.29 of 2006, wherein the learned District Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner, to examine all the witnesses on behalf of both sides i.e., the plaintiff and the defendants and mark documents on behalf of both sides. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner-D4 and the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the suit for eviction of the defendants from the plaint schedule property and recovery of a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards damages for use and occupation from March, 2004 to September, 2006. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled based on the pleadings. 4. During the course of trial, the learned District Judge, by the impugned order, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to examine the witnesses on behalf of both sides i.e., plaintiff and the defendants and to mark the documents that may be produced by both sides and issued a warrant of commission for the above purpose. Assailing the said order and the warrant, the present revision petition is filed by D4. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, mechanically granting a blanket order to record the evidence of all the witnesses of both the parties and mark all the documents produced by them, is contrary to the provisions contained in Order 18 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. It is well settled that a Commissioner cannot be appointed for recording the evidence in a mechanical way and as a matter of course, without there being any prayer on behalf of either of the parties as held in D.CHANDRAKALA AND OTHERS v. MATASHRAMA SEVA SANGHAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT[1]. I n QAMAR BEGUM AND OTHERS v. HABEEBUNNISSA[2], this Court deprecated the indiscriminate appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the witnesses while observing that the recourse to such measure shall not be as a mater of course. The appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to record the entire evidence of both sides, that too, without there being any appreciation by either of the parties, only amounts to abdication of the authority of the Court in favour of the Advocate Commissioner, which is impermissible. The impugned order of the learned District Judge is therefore held unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. 7. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year, 2000, the learned District Judge may endeavour to take necessary steps to conclude the trial of the suit expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 20th November, 2009 Tsy [1] ALD 2007(1) 121 [2] ALD 2007(1) 515