HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5288 OF 2009 Thursday, the Eleventh day of March, Two Thousand and Ten Between Gaddam Venkata Subbaiah and another Petitioners AND Poola Lakshmi Narayanamma (died) Poola Prabhakar and others Respondents ORAL ORDER: The deceased first respondent filed OS No. 17 of 2004 in the court of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioners for the relief of cancellation of two sale deeds dated 13.7.2004. Trial of the suit commenced and the first respondent filed her affidavit in lieu of chief examination. However, before she was cross examined, she died and her legal representatives respondents 2 to 6 herein were brought on record. The fourth respondent herein filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. After the trial court appointed an Advocate – Commissioner to record his cross examination, the petitioners filed IA No. 494 of 2009 with a prayer to record the cross examination of the fourth respondent in the court and not through the Commissioner. Through its order dated 13.10.2009, the trial court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision petition. Heard Mr. S.S. Bhat learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.V.Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the respondents. The suit was allotted to the Family Court which incidentally is designated as VI Addl. District Judge, Kadapa. The learned Presiding Officer of the Family Court appoints Commissioner for cross examination of witnesses as a matter of course. At one point of time, this court admonished him. The Civil Procedure Code, amended through Act 22 of 2002, no doubt provides for appointment of Commissioner for cross examination of witnesses. However, such a course must be resorted to rarely, such as where witnesses are old or ill or their presence cannot be secured. The fourth respondent is hale and healthy and it is not even alleged that he cannot attend the court. He is very much resident of Kadapa. Further it appears no application was filed for appointment of commissioner to record the cross examination. The order appears to have been passed by the court on its own accord. On the application filed by the petitioner to ensure that the cross examination is recorded in the court, the trial court passed the following order: As per the new Cr. P.C. already commissioner was appointed. Without cooperation for examinating of witness this petition is filed. The Commissioner can make note of the demeanor of the witness if necessary. This is a family Court and prejudice will be caused to family matters by spending time of the court in recording the cross-examination. Hence, petition is dismissed The callousness on the part of the court is evident from the fact that it did not even maintain distinction between Cr. P.C. and C.P.C. The reason furnished namely that the cross examination of witnesses would cause prejudice to the family matters is rather preposterous. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is directed that not only PW-1 but all the witnesses in this case shall be cross examined in the court itself. No order as to costs. __________________ L.Narasimha Reddy, J. March 11, 2010 MAS