HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:250 OF 2010 Dated: 3.2.2010 Between: K. Bhupendra ..Petitioner And S&R Family Trust, rep., by its Trustee Surendera Raj Jaiswal .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:250 OF 2010 ORDER: Challenging the order, dated 14.12.2009 in I.A.No.307 of 2009 in O.S.No.853 of 2007 passed by the learned IX Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent is the plaintiff before the Court below. The defendant filed the above application under Order XVIII Rule 14 (2) and Order XXVI Rule 14(a) r/w section 151 CPC seeking to appoint an advocate-commissioner for recording the evidence viz., cross examination and re-examination of P.W.1 and other witnesses of the plaintiff, on the ground that many documents were filed along with the chief affidavit of P.W.1 and there are many grounds and reasons in the chief affidavit and therefore, the cross-examination takes much time. While opposing the application, the plaintiff contended before the Court below that the matter involves complex questions of fraud and fabrication as to the execution of the documents concerning rights of the parties and therefore, the Court itself has to record the cross- examination of material witnesses. The Court below dismissed the above application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. The material on record goes to show that the affidavit of P.W.1 in chief examination was filed on 4.9.2008 and subsequently the matter had undergone several adjournments for disposal of the application in I.A.No.562 of 2008 filed by the plaintiff for receiving documents and the said application was allowed and on that, the defendant filed CRP No.3745 of 2009 and the said revision was dismissed. Thereafter, the matter is being adjourned from time to time for cross-examination of P.W.1 and at that stage the defendant filed the above application for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for recording cross-examination of P.W.1 and other witnesses of the plaintiff. The ground taken by P.W.1 for seeking appointment of the advocate-Commissioner that there are many grounds and reasons in the affidavit, after a period of one year, that too after dismissal of CRP No.3745 of 2009, cannot be said to be a bonafide ground in view of the events that took place in the matter after filing of the chief-affidavit. Further, it can be said that the approach of the defendant in filing the applications and the revisions, time and again on one pretext or other, is nothing but to drag on the proceedings. Further, it is not in dispute that the case on hand involves complex questions of fraud and fabrication of documents concerning the rights of the parties. Therefore, I feel that the Court while passing the order impugned has exercised its power under Order XVIII Rule 4 (2) of CPC, very cautiously. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 3rd February, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:250 OF 2010 03.02.2010