IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.651 of 2010 Between: P.Venkata Ramana Murthy … Petitioner And Tripuramallu Krishna Gopal and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 651 OF 2010 ORDER:- This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram in I.A.No.1025 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 2003, dated 04.12.2009, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/2nd defendant to appoint an advocate commissioner for recording the evidence of Dr.M.Sudhakara Rao, Cardio-Thoracic Surgeon, Yasoda Hospitals, Hyderabad, has been dismissed. Petitioner/2nd defendant is contesting the suit based on promissory notes and execution of Exs.A1 to A3 promissory notes allegedly executed by them. Due to his father’s ill health and as he was taking treatment at Hyderabad, he accompanied his father. To substantiate the same, the medical prescriptions prescribed by the Doctor, who examined him on 07.09.2000, has also been marked as Ex.B4, which is marked subject to proof and relevancy. Therefore, he filed the impugned I.A. to examine the Doctor on commission to prove that the petitioner was at Yashoda Hospital along with his father on 07.09.2000. The trial court dismissed the same on the ground that it is very expensive for the respondents/plaintiffs to attend at Hyderabad. Even if the advocate commissioner has been appointed, he has to be accompanied by the defendant, his counsel as well as the plaintiffs and their counsel apart from the expenses of the advocate commissioner, which will be a burden on the respondents/plaintiffs that they have to spend considerable amount. Though the petitioner is ready to pay the costs on the advocate commissioner, it is highly expensive for the respondents/plaintiffs to go to Hyderbad and stay at Hyderabad. Therefore, the trial court is not inclined to appoint an advocate commissioner and accordingly, dismissed the I.A. It is not possible for the defendant to examine the Doctor, who is working in a reputed hospital and particularly a Cardio-thoracic surgeon. When the plaintiffs filed the above suit for recovery of some amount due under the suit promissory notes with interest, they have to incur certain expenditure themselves by visiting to Hyderabad and the same can be recovered by them, by way of suit costs from the defendants in the event of their suit is decreed. In view of the same, the dismissal of the I.A. by the trial court on the said ground is not at all justified. Learned counsel for the petitioner/2nd defendant is agreeable to bear the expenditure of the counsel for the plaintiff visiting Hyderabad and also the advocate commissioner who is appointed to examine the Doctor. On petitioner filing affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of the Doctor on or before 04.06.2010, the commissioner can be appointed for cross-examination of the Doctor. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is set aside subject to petitioner filing affidavit in lieu of the chief examination of the Doctor on or before 04.06.2010. On such filing the affidavit, the trial court is directed to appoint an advocate commissioner for cross-examination of the Doctor, on petitioner bearing the expenditure to the said advocate commissioner and also the counsel for the plaintiff visiting Hyderabad. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed with the above direction. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 30th April 2010 Lmv