THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5520 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 21.11.2007, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, allowing the application in I.A.No.1581 of 2007 in O.S.No.3 of 2004, filed under Section 26(1) read with Section of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to record the evidence of the petitioner- plaintiff at her house i.e., at D.No.25-163, Jagganadhapuram, Machilipatnam and to file his report. 3. The petitioner is the first defendant, the first respondent is the plaintiff and respondents 2 and 3 are defendants 2 and 3, respectively, in the suit. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit. 5. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for consequential injunction. 6. It is the apprehension of the learned counsel for the first defendant that the son of the plaintiff is a responsible person in the Bar Association, and therefore, there is possibility of the Commissioner being influenced by him during the recording of evidence of the plaintiff and the same is prejudicial to the interest of the first defendant. Hence, he prays to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 7. This apprehension of the learned counsel for the first defendant is totally baseless and I cannot be carried away like this kind of apprehensions, which would only belittle the dignity and integrity of a member of the Bar. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22nd January 2010 dr