IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1771 OF 2009. Between:- Pandranki Janardhana Naidu ..Petitioner/Plaintiff And Pandranki Narayana Rao and others .. Respondents/defendants ORDER:- This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17.02.2009 passed in I.A.No.05 of 2009 in O.S.No.23 of 2008 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram, wherein the learned District Judge appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of both parties and directed the office to prepare a warrant of commission though the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was only to appoint a Commissioner to record the evidence of defendant No.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant. Perused the records. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff. He filed a suit O.S.No.23 of 2008 for partition against the respondents and for separate possession of his share. The petitioner filed I.A.No.05 of 2009 seeking appointment of a Commissioner to record the evidence of defendant No.1 on the ground that the health condition of defendant No.1 does not brook any delay in recording his evidence and if his evidence is lost, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss. It is stated that the chief affidavit of the plaintiff is also filed. The learned District Judge, however, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of both sides though it was not prayed for by either of the parties. Order 18 Rule 4 of Civil Procedure Code contemplates recording of evidence on commission. It is well settled that the Commissioner cannot be appointed for recording the evidence in a mechanical way and as a matter of course, without there being any prayer in that behalf by either of the parties. When the plaintiff sought appointment of Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence of defendant No.1 on the ground that the health condition of defendant No.1 does not brook any delay and otherwise, his evidence may be lost, the learned District Judge ought to have considered the request of recording the evidence of defendant No.1 alone and not in respect of other parties or witnesses. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the entire evidence of both sides that too, without there being any request by either of the parties to that effect only amounts to abdication of the authority of the Court in favour of the Advocate Commissioner which is impermissible. The impugned order of the learned District Judge is, therefore, modified by confining the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner only for the purpose of recording the evidence of defendant No.1 alone and setting aside the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner in respect of recording of evidence of other witnesses and parties. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th October, 2009 AMD