THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CRP Nos. 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 887, 889 and 1222 of 2010 DATE: 22.07.2011 CRP 873 of 2010 BETWEEN: Yenduri Hymavathi petitioner And Sri Chennakesava Swamy Devasthanam Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna Counsel for the respondents: The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CRP Nos. 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 887, 889 and 1222 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: In all these revisions, except in CRP No. 873 of 2010 notice was served on the respondent-Sri Chennakesava Swamy Devasthanam, however, none appeared for respondent-davasthanam. The petitioners in all the revisions are defendants and the respondent in all the revision is Sri Chennakesava Swamy Devasthanam. The plaintiff-respondent herein filed suits in the year 2008 for recovery of certain amounts being the arrears of maktha for the years 2005 to 2007 and the Court below by orders dated 22.7.2009 appointed an advocate commissioner for recording evidence and questioning the same, the present revisions are filed. Since the point for consideration in all these revisions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. It is seen that in all these matters, the plaintiff has not filed the chief-affidavits nor filed any application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, but the Court below suo-moto appointed an Advocate Commissioner for early disposal of the suits, having regard to the earlier orders stated to have been passed by this Court in a revision petition, details of which are not available and the learned counsel for petitioners is also handicapped to provide the same. The learned counsel for petitioners is also unable to inform this Court as to at whose instance, earlier the revision was filed, wherein this Court directed to dispose of the suit in a stipulated time. The learned counsel for petitioners submits that the plaintiff- respondent devasthanam is not entitled for arrears of maktha and it is further stated that in respect of rival claims over the collection of maktha, this Court earlier in a revision petitioner directed the Court below to dispose of the suits expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months and in furtherance of the said orders, the Court below passed the impugned orders appointing Advocate Commissioner for recording evidence, which is contrary to Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material available on record. A perusal of Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC does not indicate that the Advocate Commissioner shall be appointed at the instance of the respective parties, I am of the opinion that the Court has got powers to appoint Advocate Commissioner, of course, subject to the requirements contained therein. It is to be noted that merely because the Advocate Commissioner is appointed by the Court, it cannot be said that there is no requirement by the respective parties to file chief affidavits into the Court by furnishing copies of the same to other side and the Advocate Commissioner. Further, any document filed by the respective parties during their evidence, if, objected by the other side, any marking of the said document shall be subject to the orders of the Court alone and the Advocate Commissioner is entitled to record such remarks respecting the demeanour of the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the apprehension of the learned counsel for petitioners that the copies of the chief affidavits would not be furnished to them and to the Advocate Commissioner are without any basis and the present revisions are filed merely on such an apprehension, which stage has not arisen so far. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision. However, it is made clear that the respondent-plaintiff shall furnish copies of the chief affidavit to the Court , the Advocate Commissioner and the other side and any document objected by the petitioners-defendants, the admission of such document shall be subject to the orders of the Court alone. The time stipulated for recording the evidence by the Advocate Commissioner stands extended by six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the Advocate Commissioner on conclusion of recording of the evidence shall submit a report before the Court below in accordance with law. Subject to above observation, the civil revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 22.7.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CRP Nos. 873, 874, 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 887, 889 and 1222 of 2010 date: 22.7.2011