THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1337 of 2011 Dated:15.04.2011 Between: N.V.Ekambaram ...Petitioner And K.Sudhakar Reddy. ...Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1337 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.6 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. Respondent instituted the suit for recovery of Rs.2,39,652/- based on a promissory note dated 25.12.2000. The petitioner is opposing the suit alleging that the suit promissory note is forged and fabricated document. The petitioner filed an application for sending the suit pronote to handwriting expert. The same was allowed. After receipt of the report of the handwriting expert, the petitioner filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to examine the expert. It was allowed. The Advocate Commissioner recorded the evidence of handwriting expert and submitted a report to the Court. The petitioner filed objections. At that stage, the petitioner filed yet another application, being I.A.No.362 of 2010, to summon the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of examining him as a Court witness. By impugned order dated 17.02.2011 the Court below dismissed the application aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record and that the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the petitioner to record the evidence of the handwriting expert. The appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for recording cross-examination and chief examination is covered by Rule 4 of Order XVIII of CPC. Sub-rule (5) thereof obligates the Commissioner appointed to record the cross examination and to submit the report to the Court within sixty days from the date of issue of commission. Law nowhere contemplates a right to the opposite party to cross-examine the Advocate Commissioner who recorded the evidence. The Advocate Commissioner appointed under Order XVIII of CPC to record the evidence is virtually discharging the duty of the Court and therefore cannot be subjected to cross- examination, though a party can always file objections for the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner. This Court has no manner of doubt that the objections filed by the petitioner, if any, would be considered by the Court below while appreciating the evidence of the handwriting expert. The Civil Revision Petition, with the above observations, is accordingly dismissed. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 15.04.2011 vs