THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1505 of 2010 Date: 09-7-2010 Between 1. Pidikiti Haren mukharji and 2 others … Petitioners/Plaintiffs and Pidikiti Rajaratnam … Respondent/Defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1505 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-defendant No.1. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 16-12-2009, passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.489 of 2009 in O.S.No.400 of 2001 filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXVI, Rules 1 and 4-A read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to direct the Advocate- Commissioner to record the cross-examination of P.W.3 in her residence. 3. The plaintiffs filed the application to direct the Advocate-Commissioner to cross-examine P.W.3 at the residence of the said witness. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that P.W.1 was cross- examined by the Advocate-Commissioner. When the question of cross-examination of P.W.3 had arisen, the said witness could not attend the court because of various physical ailments. Hence, the present application is filed seeking to direct the Advocate- Commissioner to cross- examine P.W.3 at the residence of the said witness. The said application was dismissed by the trial court. Hence the revision. 4. From the impugned order it further appears that only for non-examination of P.W.3 the matter is coming up for trial since 2001 and of course, the trial court did not believe the version of the plaintiffs so far as the cross- examination of P.W.3 at her home is concerned. The trial court found that the plaintiffs have been protracting the matter and keeping the same pending on this ground only. Hence, the said application was dismissed. 5. Though prima facie I find no illegality in the order, still, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly in the light of long pendency of the suit only for want of evidence by P.W.3, I feel it expedient to direct the trial court to direct the Advocate-Commissioner to cross- examine P.W.3 at the residence of the said witness. This is purely in the interest of disposal of the matter, which is pending since a long time but not on any other ground. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to the trial court to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to examine P.W.3 at her home within 2 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed, at the stage of admission. No costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 09th July, 2010. Note:- Issue C.C. by one week. (B/o) Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.1505 of 2010 09th July, 2010. (Ak)