IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.722 OF 2009 Between: N.Subbaramaiah and another ..... PETITIONERS AND K.Shaharab .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.722 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 03.02.2009 in I.A.No.1328 of 2008 in O.S.No.195 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, whereunder and whereby, the application filed to appoint Commissioner to record the evidence of respondent herein and his witness in the present suit and O.S.No.196 of 2006 at Hyderabad, was allowed. 2. The petitioners herein are the defendants and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that both the parties were residents of Madanapalli; that the respondent herein has not given any reason in the affidavit filed by the advocate appearing for the respondent in the trial Court for the purpose of appointing a Commissioner; and that the same cannot be taken as a ground to appoint Commissioner and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that considering the material available on record the trial Court has rightly appointed the Commissioner, and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision petition. 5. The powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are supervisory in nature to see whether the trial Court or the Tribunal acted within its bounds. If they exceed their limits, the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court can be invoked. 6. The application, under Order XXVI Rule 4 Sections 75 and 151 C.P.C., is filed to appoint a Commissioner to record the evidence of plaintiff and his witness at Hyderabad. No doubt, the said provision gives power to issue commission for examination of a person, but the same cannot be issued unless the Court records the reasons and thinks it necessary to do so. No reasons are contained in the impugned order. Similarly, the respondent has not given any reason by way of affidavit as to why it is considered necessary in the interest of justice for issuance of a commission. Since the affidavit filed in support of the petition is signed by the concerned advocate appearing for the party, the same cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of issuing a commission for appointment of Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 4 Sections 75 and 151 C.P.C. Therefore, the trial Court simply ordered for appointment of a Commissioner to examine the respondent and his witness at Hyderabad, without assigning any reasons to examine him and his witness at Hyderabad. In view of the fact that the respondent and his witness are residents of Madanapalli village, which falls within the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanpalli, Commissioner need not be appointed to examine the witness. Hence, the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.02.2009, in I.A.No.1328 of 2008 in O.S.No.195 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Dt.07.06.2010 Ivd/Md