THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2176 of 2010 06.08.2010 Between: Pilla Rambabu and another ….Petitioners AND Pilla Venkata Narasimha Rao @ Chinna And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2176 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.223 of 2006. The suit was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, for partition of suit schedule properties. First petitioner and first respondent are brothers and sons of Suryanarayana. Second petitioner is son of first petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 are wife and son respectively of first respondent. The partition is sought in respect of the property left behind by Suryanarayana. Defendants are opposing the suit on the ground that Suryanarayana executed will, Ex.B.1 in their favour. So as to prove they wanted to examine the scribe, the attestor and two doctors who treated late Suryanarayana. Therefore, they filed an application being I.A.No.279 of 2010 under Order XXVI Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for appointment of advocate commissioner to examine the scribe, the attestor of Ex.B.1 and two doctors at Visakhapatnam. All these witnesses are staying in Visakhapatnam. Learned trial Judge dismissed the application referring to applicable case law. After hearing counsel for petitioners, this Court is convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. As per Order XVI Rule 19 of CPC, the Court is competent to issue summons to any person to give evidence: (i) if such person resides in the local limits of the Court’s ordinary original jurisdiction; (ii) if such person resides at a place less than 100 kilometers; or (iii) at a place where the Court is situated less than 500 kilometers from the Court house if such place is connected by railway or steamer or public conveyance for five-sixths of distance. This, however, does not mean that in every case where the distance is less than 500 kilometers – as in this case; that Court is bound to issue a commission for examination of the witnesses. Order XXVI Rule 4 of CPC is yet another provision dealing with power of the Court to issue commission for the examination of persons on interrogatories or otherwise inter alia it is to the effect that such commission would be issued to any person without detriment to the public service and such evidence is considered necessary in the interest of justice. In the instant case, the parties are related. The dispute is about the property of common predecessor. Therefore, the Court below in its discretion thought it fit not to exercise discretion in issuing commission for examining witnesses. After perusing the impugned order, this Court is convinced that there is no gross error requiring interference under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 06.08.2010 Pln