THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4042 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.117 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District against the petitioner for recovery of amount. It is stated that initially, an ex parte decree was passed and on its being set aside by the appellate Court, the matter is now pending before the trial Court. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was concluded. On his part, the petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of the chief-examination. In the context of his cross-examination, he filed I.A.No.1308 of 2009 under Order 26 Rules 1 and 4 read with Sections 75-A and 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record his evidence at Coimbatore. He stated that he is a native of Coimbatore and when he appeared in the trial Court to defend himself in the suit, on an earlier occasion, he was kidnapped and there is serious threat to his safety in case he is required to appear for cross-examination. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order, dated 23.06.2010. The petitioner filed I.A.No.465 of 2010 with a prayer to review the said order. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 08.07.2010. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the only ground on which the petitioner seeks appointment of a Commissioner to record his cross-examination is, there is a threat to his safety and life and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if such a course is adopted. He further submits that the trial Court did not consider certain other aspects when it dismissed I.A.No.1308 of 2009. It is, no doubt, true that C.P.C. has been amended, providing for the appointment of Commissioner for recording cross-examination of witnesses. For all practical purposes, the chief- examination of witnesses is reduced to an empty formality by providing for filing of affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Slowly, the anomalies and repercussions on account of dispensing with chief examination are being felt in the results of the suits. Be that as it may, the provision for appointment of Commissioners to record cross-examination makes it optional and not compulsory. The cross-examination of a witness in the Court has its own significance. The parties concerned would have the benefit of the observation of the Court on several aspects such as admissibility of document, relevancy of questions etc. It is only in rare and exceptional cases, particularly, in case of witnesses, who are fairly old or have become immobilised that the facility of appointing Advocate Commissioners can be considered for recording of cross- examination. The only basis pleaded by the petitioner is threat perception. The trial Court itself can be required to ensure that proper protection is given to the witness as and when he appears. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. It is, however, directed that the trial Court shall arrange necessary protection for the witness, whenever he appears before the Court, till he gets into the train or bus for returning to his native place, by duly directing the Station House Officer concerned to make such arrangement. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.08.2010 kdl