IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE THIRTEETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3336 OF 2010 Between: Pandranki Janardhana Naidu. --- Petitioner/ Plaintiff. AND Pandranki Narayana Rao and four others. --- Respondents/ Defendants. The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3336 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the oral order passed by the Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court Judge, Vizianagaram, in I.A. No.5 of 2009 in O.S. No.23 of 2008, dated 28-06-2010. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5. With the consent of both the counsel, this Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff, he filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to cross-examine the first defendant, but the lower Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of all the witnesses. Against which, he preferred a Revision Petition No. 1771 of 2009 and the same was disposed of on 09-10- 2009 by limiting the Advocate Commissioner to cross examine the first defendant only. Subsequently, the Advocate Commissioner examined defendant No.1 and filed his report. He took the objections that despite the direction of the Advocate Commissioner to the counsel for D-2, D-3 and D-5, he did not cross-examine the first defendant but the learned commissioner failed to record the said fact namely that the defendants 2, 3 and 5 refused to cross-examine the witness i.e., first defendant. Subsequently, it appears that the same Advocate Commissioner issued a notice to the parties as well as the plaintiff’s counsel stating that in pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, he was going to examine D-1 on 14-07-2010 by 06-00 p.m. at his residence. Under the above circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition. There is any amount of force in the contentions urged by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner that on the report of the Advocate Commissioner and the objections filed by the plaintiff’s counsel, the Court has to pass a judicial order but without there being any such judicial order, the Advocate Commissioner issued notice to D-1 and other parties stating that the counsel on either side to be present at the time of his examining the first defendant on 14-07-2010, which is illegal. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 5 contended that the plaintiff’s counsel cross-examined the first defendant without there being any examination-in-chief or any affidavit containing chief-examination. Considering the rival contentions, this Court is not inclined to give any finding as to the correctness of the procedure adopted by the Advocate Commissioner in examining D-1. However, it is obvious from the events which took place, that the Advocate Commissioner without there being any judicial order from the learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, ought not to have issued notice to the parties and their counsel stating that he was going to examine the first defendant again on 14-07-2010. Such a course is not permissible for the Advocate Commissioner. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, at the time of hearing, brought to my notice that the impugned notice was issued by the Advocate Commissioner on the oral instructions of the learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. Thus, the entire procedure followed to examine the first defendant in spite of specific direction of this court in the Revision Petition No.1771 of 2009, suffers from material irregularity and the lower Court ought to have passed a judicial order directing future course of action in regard to examination of the first defendant. The Learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, is not supposed to issue any oral instructions to the Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence. Such procedure is opposed to the established principles governing the examination of witnesses provided under the Code of Civil Procedure and the oral instructions allegedly issued by the lower Court to the Advocate Commissioner to proceed with recording of evidence is not legal. The learned Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, after thoroughly examining the entire procedure followed by the Advocate Commissioner pursuant to the direction of this Court in the earlier Revision Petition and the objections raised by the plaintiff’s counsel, is directed to pass a judicial order on the report of the Advocate commissioner as well as considering the objections filed by both the parties and issue specific direction to the Commissioner as well as the parties in the matter of examining the witnesses. With the above direction, the Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial Court is directed to consider the report of the Advocate Commissioner as well as the objections filed by both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. November, 30, 2010. DSH