IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2156 OF 2008 Between: Imandi Satyavathi …Petitioner A n d Yechuri Gnananda Krishna Murthy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2156 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 24-03-2008 in I.A.No.131 of 2006 in O.S.No.56 of 2002, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Anakapalle, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order XXVI Rule 10 CPC seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to record her cross-examination, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale. When the matter came up for trial, she filed her affidavit in lieu of the chief examination and filed the present I.A.No.131 of 2006 seeking appointment of a Commissioner to record her cross-examination on the ground that she was bed ridden due to some gynaeic problem. The respondents opposed the said application contending that the petitioner was not a resident of Vizianagaram as claimed by her and was residing at Thummapala within the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Court dismissed the application observing that the petition was filed in the year 2006 and no material was placed before the Court to show that the petitioner was suffering from the alleged illness, and the petitioner continued to suffer from the alleged illness even by 2008 when the petition came up for consideration. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not produced any medical evidence to show that she was suffering from any gynaeic problem or she was bed ridden because of the same and that she was unable to undertake travel to the Court at Anakapalli. The affidavit filed in support of the application was sworn in at Anakapalli, as observed by the trial Court in the impugned order. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner was bed ridden and was unable to move out, the trial Court was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to record her cross-examination. There are absolutely no merits in the civil revision petition. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 09th June, 2011 Lrkm.