THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2307 of 2010 Dated:12.07.2010 Between: Siddartha Carbochem Products Limited. ….Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Sugars Limited. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2307 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.39 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge and Family Court, West Godavari, Eluru. The respondent filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,64,207/- towards goods supplied. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.48 of 2007 for damages in a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-. Both the suits were clubbed by the lower Court and evidence is being recorded in O.S.No.39 of 2005. The petitioner herein examined D.Ws.1 and 2. Both the witnesses were examined on commission at Jalagaon, Maharastra. The commission was executed and returned to the Court. The petitioner again filed I.A.No.239 of 2010 for reentrustment of commission of warrant to the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of reexamination. By impugned order dated 12.03.2010 the Court below dismissed the application directing the petitioner to produce its witnesses on or before 23.03.2010 for reexamination or any other purpose. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. This Court heard the Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondent. It is mainly contended that when the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for examination of D.W.1, who is an elderly person aged 75 years, and D.W.2 who is afflicted with paralysis, the Court below ought to have reentrusted the commission of warrant for reexamination. This is refuted by the Counsel for the other side. In the affidavit accompanying I.A.No.239 of 2010 the petitioner’s General Power of Attorney holder alleged that, “on some important aspects due to inadvertence of the Counsel, the two witnesses could not be reexamined”, and therefore, they have to be reexamined. This is not a valid reason. Obviously, the petitioner is trying to fill up the lacunae in the evidence, and for such a purpose the Advocate Commissioner cannot be reentrusted with the warrant. If so advised, the petitioner may produce its witnesses for clarifying any statements made earlier. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 12.07.2010 vs