The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.876 of 2014
Dated 25.04.2014
Between:
Telagathoti Bhaskara Lakshmi …Petitioner And Vistarla Vignana Kumar and 4 others …Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Naga Praveen Vankayalapati Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against Order, dated 26-07-2013, in IA.No.1067 of 2013 in OS.No.58 of 2010, on the file of the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala.
The petitioner filed the aforesaid suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated, 19- 03-2007. Along with the suit, she has filed IA.No.1067 of 2013 under Order XXVI Rule 4 (A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’), for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to record the cross-examination of PW1 at Hyderabad. The lower Court by the order under revision dismissed the said application on two grounds- firstly that as Order XXVI Rule 4-A of the CPC applies only to those persons, who reside within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, the petition is not maintainable and secondly that if the request of the petitioner is accepted to tend to her convenience, the respondents, who are five in number, will be put to inconvenience as they may be required to travel to Hyderabad in connection with the cross-examination of the petitioner. Though technically speaking, the application under Order XXVI Rule 4-A of the CPC is not maintainable, under Order XXVI Rule 4 (1) (a) of the CPC, the Court has the power to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for examining the party residing beyond the local limits of the Court. Be that as it may. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the lower Court. However, the petitioner is permitted to file an application before the lower Court for fixing a specific date for her cross-examination so that that her unnecessary travel from Hyderabad can be avoided. If such application is filed, the lower Court shall consider the same and see that the cross- examination of the petitioner is recorded within as short a time as possible without adjourning the case needlessly.
The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.1212 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 25th April, 2014
LUR