IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 3931 of 2009 Between: Smt.S.Sarala and others. . .Petitioners And S.Dattatreya and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3931 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against an order dated 22.06.2009 in I.A. No.695 of 2009 in O.S. No.40 of 2006 whereby the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar allowed the application filed under Order XVIII Rule 4(2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C by the petitioner, who 1st respondent herein, to appoint Advocate-Commissioner to record his evidence at his residence in Goa. The brief facts are that the 1st respondent herein, who is resident of Mahaboobnagar, residing at Goa, instituted a suit in O.S. No.40 of 2006 on the file of I Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar seeking partition of the plaint schedule properties. He filed his chief affidavit in the said suit. As he is having life threat and it is not desirable for him to go to Mahaboobnagar, he filed I.A. No.695 of 2009 requesting the Court to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for his cross examination at his residence in Goa. Taking the facts and circumstances into consideration, the trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination at Hyderabad and the same is under challenge in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned counsel for respondents. After perusal of the entire order passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, this Court is of the view that the trial Court is justified in appointing the Advocate- Commissioner. When once it is specifically pleaded and established that the plaintiff i.e., the 1st respondent herein is having life threat, it is not desirable to ask him to go to Mahaboobnagar for the purpose of cross examination. Further, the Court below has taken care in observing that the expenditure to the counsel appearing for the defendant shall be paid by the 1st respondent herein. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the order impugned in this revision needs no interference. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J October 05, 2009 KSH