HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.315 of 2011 ORDER The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.283 of 2003 in the Court of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 8 herein for partition. Pending the suit, the parties, except respondent No.7 herein, have entered into a compromise and accordingly, they filed a memorandum of compromise in the Court, but the same was returned with certain objections and later, it was resubmitted by them. While so, respondent No.7 herein got impleaded in the suit as defendant No.8. In the meantime, after completion of the evidence of plaintiff and the compromise petition was returned, the petitioner herein, who is defendant No.1 in the suit, was examined as DW1 in part. Thereafter, the Court below passed an order dated 04.10.2010, appointing an Advocate Commissioner suo motu on payment of costs of Rs.3,000/- for recording his further cross- examination. Hence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.820 of 2010 under Section 151 CPC seeking to recall the said order. Through the docket order dated 22.12.2010, the Court below dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.7. 3. The order impugned reads as under: “This Court is not having either separate typist or stenographer. So, I have to appoint Commissioner to examine D.W.1 as it is likely to take much time to record. Same is practice in all matters. Petitioner also did not prosecute this petition by absent on 10.12.2010 the last date of adjournment. So, there is no tenable ground to allow the petition”. Admittedly, the petitioner was examined as D.W.1 in part. For his further examination, the Court below passed an order of appointing Commissioner suo motu by imposing the costs. On the ground of non-availability of Typist or Stenographer for recording the evidence, the Court cannot appoint the Commissioner even though the petitioner is able to attend the Court and give evidence. Be that as it may, since the parties have submitted a memorandum of compromise before the Court below, the Court below ought not to have appointed the Advocate Commissioner for cross-examination of D.W.1. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. However, as it is stated that the compromise memo was re-submitted by the parties, the Court below shall record the compromise in the suit as per the terms of compromise memo, if it is in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:05.08.2011 sj