IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5829 OF 2009 Between: K.N.Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND K.Parthasarathy and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5829 OF 2009 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.205 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur, filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of money. The plaintiff/1st respondent filed I.A.No.76 of 2009 to appoint an advocate commissioner to record the evidence of the expert who gave the opinion with regard to the disputed documents. The said application was opposed by the 1st defendant stating that he being an elderly person was not in a position to be present at the time of examination of the expert by the commissioner. The Court below having heard both the parties, by order dated 28.07.2009 allowed I.A.No.76 of 2009 appointing an advocate commissioner to examine the expert at Hyderabad. The said order is challenged in this revision petition contending inter alia that the Court below committed a grave error in appointing the commissioner for examination of the expert without taking into consideration, the difficulty expressed by the 1st defendant to travel along with his advocate. It is also contended that the absence of the petitioner at the time of examination of the expert would adversely effect his case and therefore, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is clear from the material available on record that the Court has sent summons to the expert to appear before the Court to depose. However, the expert expressed her inability to attend the Court being a Government Employee and sought appointment of a commissioner for her examination particularly on Saturdays so that her work would not be disturbed. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.76 of 2009 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence of expert. Order 26 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code empowers the Court to appoint a commissioner on being satisfied as to the inability of the witness to attend the Court to give evidence. The reasons assigned in the order under revision while appointing the commissioner for examination of the expert reflected the satisfaction of the Court below as to the inability expressed by the expert to attend the Court to give evidence. Such discretion exercised by the Court below on proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 16.12.2009 Ivd