HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1167 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order, dated 25.1.2011 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, in I.A.No.293 of 2010 in O.S.No.1243 of 2001. The 1st respondent herein filed the above I.A. under Order XXVI Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, seeking to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to record his evidence (D.W.2) at his residence bearing D.No.1013, 39th Cross, 2nd Block Rajajinagar, Bangalore, on the ground that he is chronic patient suffering from blood pressure and other ailments and Dr. M.K.S. Dhanasekhar of Dhanalakshmi Clinic, Bangalore advised him to take complete bed rest and he filed his chief affidavit as D.W.2. The petitioners herein opposed the application. The Court below allowed the application appointing Sri G. Sambashivudu, Advocate as Commissioner for the purpose of recording the evidence of D.W.2 at his residence. Hence, the present revision. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners contends that the medical certificate discloses that the 1st respondent is fit to resume normal duties from 24.10.2010 and therefore, there is no need to appoint an advocate-commissioner for his examination at his residence. However, the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the 1st respondent is a chronic patient and that he is not in a position to undertake journey. Though the 1st respondent produced medical certificate to show that he cannot undertake journey, but a perusal of the same, would disclose that the medical certificate, certifies that the 1st respondent was advised bed rest from 27.9.2010 to 23.10.2010 and he is fit to resume normal duties from 24.10.2010. Thus, it is clear that the 1st respondent is able to discharge his normal duties. However, considering the age of the 1st respondent, who is aged 64 years and considering the ailments associated with his old-age related ailments and further having regard to the fact that this Court had directed disposal of the suit expeditiously, the Court below felt it appropriate to allow the present application filed by the 1st respondent for appointment of an advocate-Commissioner, for examining him at his residence, and no exception can be taken thereto, particularly when the evidence of the 1st respondent would be recorded in the presence of the petitioner and his counsel and the costs to be incurred in that regard would be borne by the 1st respondent. For the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision. There is no merit in the CRP and the same is accordingly dismissed. The Advocate-Commissioner shall execute the warrant as ordered by the Court below forthwith. No order as to costs. __________________ Justice N.V. Ramana Dated:29.10.2011 Nn. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1167 OF 2011 29.10.2011 Nn