THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 3025 and 3026 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: As both the revisions are interrelated and are for same relief, they are disposed of through a common order. The respondents filed R.C.C.Nos.38 and 39 of 2007 before the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the petitioner for eviction from the schedule premises on the ground that there is a bona fide requirement of the said premises by the respondents. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had secured alternative accommodation. On behalf of the respondents, PW3 by name K. Srinivasa Rao filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination stating several facts supporting the case of the respondents. I.A.Nos. 598 and 597 of 2011 were filed by the respondents under Order XXVI Rule 4(a) C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner to record the cross examination of PW3. The petitioner opposed the applications by stating that PW3 is capable of attending the Court and that his cross-examination in the Court is essential having regard to the tenor of his evidence. The trial Court allowed the applications through separate orders dated 07.07.2011. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Sriram Kartik, learned counsel for the respondents who filed caveat. It is no doubt true that the Civil Procedure Code creates a facility for appointment of Commissioners to record the cross examination of the witnesses. That however is a matter of course. It is only when the presence of the witness cannot be procured before the Court, that the feasibility of appointing Commissioner to record cross-examination can be considered. The cross examination of a witness in the Court is an important step. The Presiding Officer will have the benefit of observing the demeanour of witness. Further, much would depend upon the purport of the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. If it touches several aspects which need elaborate discussion, it is appropriate that the cross examination is done in the Court. In case the witness is almost a formal one and the affidavit does not touch the merits of the matter, no harm would be caused to the parties, if the cross-examination is done through commission. In the instant case, PW3 filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination covering the whole gamut of the case. In fact, it surpasses the purport of the RCCs. When he has volunteered to state so many facts, it is better that he is cross-examined in the Court itself. No grounds of ill health or disability of the witness are pleaded. Hence, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside. It is directed that PW3 shall be cross- examined in the Court itself, may be on a day, which is convenient to him in case he has any preoccupation. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt. 29.07.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 3025 and 3026 of 2011 Dt.29.07.2011