THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2168 OF 2010 ORDER The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 40 of 2008 in the court of Principal District Jude, Kurnool against the petitioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for recovery of certain amount on the strength of a promissory note. The petitioner filed the written statement therein; the issues were framed; and the trial of the suit commenced. One Sri N.Venkateswara Reddy filed affidavit in lieu of chief-examination of PW.2. The 1st respondent filed I.A. No. 348 of 2010 under Rule 4 (2) of Order 18 read with Rule 1 of Order 26 and Section 151 CPC with a prayer to appoint an advocate commissioner to record the cross- examination of PW.2. The ground pleaded by the 1st respondent was that PW.2 was suffering from ill health. The petitioner, who figured as defendant No.2, filed a counter opposing the application. It is stated that PW.2 is hale and healthy and has appeared in several cases including C.C. No. 545 of 2008 on number of times. The trial Court allowed I.A. Hence, this revision. Heard K. Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. This court ordered notice before admission on 02.06.2010 and permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to serve notice on respondents. It is stated that the acknowledgement has not been received. However, this Court takes note of the fact that 1st respondent is aware of filing of the revision, since in spite of stay granted by this Court on 02.06.2010, he has not chosen to enter appearance. Since the matter is in a narrow compass, it need not be kept pending any further. The C.P.C. created the facility of filing affidavits in lieu of chief- examination. That itself denies the trial Court, of the benefit of observing the tenor and demeanour of the witness. At last, at the stage of cross- examination, the Court would have an opportunity to observe the nature of evidence given by the concerned witness. It is only in exceptional cases the cross-examination can be recorded by appointing a Commissioner. The 1st respondent pleaded that PW.2 is suffering from ill health. He did not state that the witness is suffering from permanent disability. Temporary ill health cannot be the basis for appointment of Commissioner to record cross-examination. Further, the petitioner states that the said witness attended the proceedings in other Court subsequent to filing of the petition. The trial Court did not take that into account. Appointment of Commissioner for cross-examination of the witnesses must be avoided as far as possible. Hence, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set side. _________________________ JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Date: 19.01.2011 tsk