IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5367 OF 2008 Between: Mehmooda Begum …Petitioner A n d Abida Paraveen ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5367 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30-10-2008 in I.A.No.1248 of 2008 in O.S.No.177 of 2005, on the file of the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein for appointment of a Commissioner to record her cross-examination, was allowed and Advocate-Commissioner was appointed. 2. Heard. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/ defendant for perpetual injunction. The petitioner filed a written statement contesting the suit. When the matter was coming up for trial, the respondent herein filed I.A.No.249 of 2007 under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for recording her cross-examination at her residence on the grounds that she is a parda nasheen lady and that she was also suffering from slip disk problem and, therefore, unable to attend the Court. The said petition was resisted by the petitioner/defendant. The trial Court, by order dated 05-10-2007, dismissed the said application I.A.No.249 of 2007. The respondent herein carried the matter in revision before this Court in C.R.P.No.5071 of 2007. By order dated 08-02-2008, this Court dismissed the CRP and confirmed the order passed by the trial Court on the ground that the claim of the respondent herein that she is a parda nasheen lady is negatived by her own conduct in appearing before the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and giving evidence and the other ground that she was suffering from slip disc problem also does not deserve consideration, inasmuch as the doctor admittedly advised her to take bed rest only for two to three months. Subsequent to the dismissal of C.R.P.No.5071 of 2007, the respondent herein again filed another application in I.A.No.1248 of 2008 for the self- same relief of appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to record her cross-examination at her residence on the same ground that she is suffering from slip disc problem and is not in a position to attend the Court. The said application was resisted by the petitioner herein. The trial Court, by the impugned order, allowed the said application and appointed Advocate- Commissioner on the ground that the Court has noted the physical condition of the respondent herein i.e., P.W.1 and she was found to be not capable to walk and she was brought before the Court on a wheel chair. The trial Court, no doubt, referred to the earlier dismissal of C.R.P.No.5071 of 2007, but still allowed the fresh application on the premise that there has been change of circumstances subsequent to filing of I.A.No.249 of 2007. It is to be noted that the ground urged by the respondent herein in the earlier application I.A.No.249 of 2007 and in the present application I.A.No.1248 of 2008 is one and the same viz., that she was unable to attend the Court because of slip disc problem. The said plea was rejected by the trial Court earlier application in I.A.No.249 of 2007 and the said order is confirmed by this Court in C.R.P.No.5071 of 2007. It is not disputed that the said order has become final. In the said order, there was a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit itself on merits within a period of six months. In view of the earlier order in I.A.No.249 of 2007, which was confirmed in C.R.P.No.5071 of 2007, a fresh application filed by the respondent in I.A.No.1248 of 2008 for the self-same relief on the same ground, is unsustainable. The respondent herein P.W.1 even if brought to the Court on a wheel chair, as observed by the trial Court, the same does not afford any valid or sufficient ground to construe as change of circumstances and grant the relief, which was earlier rejected by this Court, which only amounts to circumventing the orders passed by the Court earlier, which is not permissible under law. 4. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is unsustainable and, therefore, liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 29th December, 2010 Lrkm.