THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2914 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.620 of 2009 in I.A.No.481 of 2009 in O.S.No.148 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, whereby the application filed the petitioner seeking to modify the orders dated 11.08.2008 directing the defendant and her husband to attend the Court or other convenient place in Kakinada to give evidence before the Commissioner, was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/defendant filed I.A.No.481 of 2009 in O.S.No.148 of 2007 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of the defendant and her husband by enclosing a certificate issued by a Doctor certifying that the left foot of her husband has been amputated. Accepting the said plea, the trial Court allowed the I.A.No.481 of 2009 on 11.08.2009. However, the petitioner, doubting the medical evidence, issued a registered notice asking the Doctor who issued the medical certificate to clarify the correctness of the certificate, but the Doctor kept quiet without giving any reply. Therefore, contending that the respondent is physically and mentally alright and that her husband is able to attend to his official duties without assistance of anybody, the petitioner filed I.A.No.620 of 2009 in O.S.No.148 of 2007 for modification of the order dated 11.08.2009 passed in I.A.No.481 of 2009. The said I.A.No.620 of 2009 was dismissed by the trial Court. Hence, this revision. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that ignorance on the part of the Doctor to give reply to the notice issued by the petitioner would not give raise to any cause of action to the petitioner to seek modification of the orders passed by the trial Court permitting the respondent and her husband to give evidence through an Advocate Commissioner considering the medical grounds and that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for recording the evidence of the respondent and her husband would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner in any manner nor injustice would be done to him. Therefore, the discretion exercised by the trial Court does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 16th July, 2010 GHN