THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1923, 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 OF 2024 COMMON ORDER:- 1. C.R.P.No.1923 of 2024 is filed claiming the following relief: “…pleased to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.21 of 2024 in O.S.No.251 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru and direct the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukuru to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of the petitioner and pass such other or further reliefs…” 2. C.R.P.No.1924 of 2024 is filed claiming the following relief: “…pleased to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.181 of 2024 in O.S.No.14 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru and direct the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukuru to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of the petitioner and pass such other or further reliefs...” 3. C.R.P.No.1925 of 2024 is filed claiming the following relief: “…pleased to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.23 of 2024 in O.S.No.45 of 2019 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru and direct the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukuru to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of the petitioner and pass such other or further reliefs...” 2 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch 4. C.R.P.No.1926 of 2024 is filed claiming the following relief: “…pleased to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru and direct the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross-examination of the petitioner and pass such other or further reliefs...” 5. C.R.P.No.1927 of 2024 is filed claiming the following relief: “…pleased to call for the records and set-aside the order dated 19.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.24 of 2024 in O.S.No.12 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru and direct the Senior Civil Judge Court, Kandukuru to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record the cross examination of the petitioner and pass such other or further reliefs...” 6. Since the issue involved in all the Civil Revisions Petitions is one and the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of all the Civil Revision Petitions by way of Common Order. 7. For the sake of convenience and to avoid ambiguity in the discussion, the facts in C.R.P.No.1923 of 2024 are taken into consideration. 8. The parties herein are referred as it is as arrayed in the Civil Revision Petitions. 9. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit i.e. O.S.No.251 of 2018 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge 3 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch Court, Kandukuru. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.22,79,110/- basing upon a promissory note allegedly had been executed by the petitioner. 10. The case of the petitioner herein is that the evidence of PW-1 is completed and the chief evidence of petitioner herein / DW-1 is also completed by way of filing a Chief Affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.21 of 2024 in O.S.No.251 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Kandukur seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record his cross-examination/evidence at his residence situated in Hyderabad, on the ground that the petitioner has been suffering from cardiac problem and doctors advised him to take rest for a period of three months. 11. Sri D.V. Sai Nath, learned counsel for the Respondent filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondent contending inter alia that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed only to drag the suit proceedings, even though suit was filed in the year 2018 and also denied the grounds of the petitioner pertaining to health condition. He further asserts that after hearing the both the parties, the Court below rightly dismissed the I.A.No.21 of 2024 in O.S.No.251 of 2018 on perusal of the medical record wherein the petitioner was recommended / needed complete bed rest and to avoid travel completely only for a period of approximately three months from the date of surgery i.e. with effect from 24.12.2023 to 10.03.2024. The said period was already completed. As such, the plea of the petitioner lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed. 4 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch 12. The order in I.A.No.21 of 2024 in O.S.No.251 of 2018, dated 19.06.2024 is assailed in the present Civil Revision Petition on the ground that the Court below ought to have considered the petitioner’s ailment/health condition for appearance before the Court physically for cross examination. If any advocate commissioner is appointed as requested by the petitioner for his cross-examination, it would not cause any prejudice to the Respondent. The Court below while passing orders ignored the petitioner’s cardiac problem, which posed a risk to his physical appearance by travelling a long distance for cross-examination and ignored the medical certificate filed along with the Interlocutory Application. 13. Moreover, since the Chief examination itself was conducted by way of the Chief Affidavit and even for cross-examination of the petitioner through the Advocate Commissioner, no prejudice will be caused to the Respondent, since the petitioner expressed his readiness to borne all expenses of the Advocate Commissioner. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the Court below dismissed the Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner erroneously, even though the petitioner has been suffering from health problems to travel long distance for cross-examination instead of appointing an Advocate Commissioner is contrary to the purport of Order XVIII Rule 4 and also Order XXVI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908. Learned counsel also relied upon a judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in 5 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch Yarkareddy Anantha Reddy vs. Durba Lakshmi Bhavani1. In view of the judgment rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, the impugned order in I.A.No.21 of 2024 in O.S.No.251 of 2018 is liable to be set aside. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the medical certificates submitted by the petitioner along with the Revision Petition have suggested for bed rest for a particular period only, the same was ended long back. Therefore, the petitioner can able to travel and make his physical appearance for cross-examination, since the period is already over. He further submits that the medical certificates produced by the petitioner is suggestive of bed rest for a particular period and the period was already over. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the Respondent also filed evidence before this Court along with the counter affidavit wherein the petitioner has been participating all social functions i.e. marriage function and political campaigning for the General Elections, 2024 at Kandukur. Therefore, the petitioner is intentionally avoiding his physical appearance for cross- examination before the Court below, without there being any valid reason. As such, filing of the present petition is with an intention to drag the proceedings and to cause delay in disposal of the suit which was originally filed in the year 2018. 1 C.R.P.No.3192 of 20016, dated 1908.2016; 2016 (5) ALT 787; MANU/AP/0704/2016 6 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch 17. It is further argued that since the petitioner denied the execution of the promissory note, the Court below ought to have observed the demeanor of any witness/petitioner while conducting cross examination. Therefore, such demeanor cannot be reflected, if the petitioner is examined by an advocate commissioner. Therefore, keeping in mind of the said factum, the Court below rightly dismissed the I.A.No.21 of 2024 in O.S.No.251 of 2018. Hence, the order impugned do not warrants interference of this Hon’ble Court. 18. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner(s) and learned counsel for the Respondent(s) and perused the material placed on record. 19. On perusal of the medical certificates filed by the petitioner herein, which indicates that the petitioner was directed to have bed rest for a particular period. The other certificate filed by the petitioner does not contain any date and not issued by the cardiac expert, as such the same is not a valid certificate. It is only filed for the purpose of misleading the Courts. The said fact was observed by the Court below and rightly held that the petitioner’s petition / application to appoint an advocate commissioner lacks merits and is liable to be rejected. 20. Moreover, the petitioner herein is aged about 57 years and even not a senior citizen. The cardiac ailment is quite common in India and once treated, anyone can lead normal life on par with other people. Therefore, the petitioner herein after having treatment for cardiac problem, he can discharge his duties 7 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch as usual as a normal person. On perusal of Medical jurisprudence, it is not suggesting any type of restrictions except food and other habits. 21. In the case in hand, the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent clearly established that the petitioner has been moving / travelling to his native place as he wishes and also attending social functions and political election campaigning. As of now, as per pleadings, he is residing out of the jurisdiction of the Court below, i.e. at Hyderabad. If an Advocate Commissioner is appointed, the Commissioner and other counsels must have been travelled and they have to suspend their work for three or four days at Court station. Moreso, they won’t be compensated for loss of their work. Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner not to suffer so many other advocates for the sake of petitioner and the age of the petitioner also not suggestive to have such relief, apart from that, Court must observe the demeanor of the petitioner at the time of cross examination which is an inducible thing for adjudication. 22. As contended by the learned counsel for the Respondent, since the petitioner denied the execution and receipt of the amount under the promissory note, the observation of demeanor of the petitioner by the Court below is very much relevant to decide core issue, whether he executed a promissory note or not, which is the crux of the adjudication of entire suit should be considered and also sustainable. 8 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch 23. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Order XVIII Rule 4 of the C.P.C, 1908, the commissioner can be appointed for examination of the witness including the demeanor of any witness is not possible, since it is an act of psychological feeling of particular person. For understanding, relevant portion of the Order XVIII Rule 4 of the C.P.C., 1908 is extracted as under: ORDER XVIII (Hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses) 4. Recording of evidence: The Commissioner may record such remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Order XXVI (Commissions to examine witness) of Rule 4 (Persons for whose examination commission may issue) of the CPC, 1908, that the Court below has the ample power to issue a commission for the examination of witness, by that no prejudice is caused to the Respondent herein. 25. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Yarkareddy Anantha Reddy vs. Durba Lakshmi Bhavani(1 Supra), wherein the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana observed as under: 6. The second ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the demeanor of the witness has to be seen by the Court. But Order XXVI, Rule 4 C.P.C. itself takes care of such a contingency and an Advocate-Commissioner being an officer of 9 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch Court, is certainly entitled to note down the demeanor of the witness. The entire Code has undergone sweeping changes in the years 1999 and 2002. In an age where chief-examination is permitted through affidavits the original philosophy surrounding the noting down of the demeanor of witnesses, has to some extent been diluted. 7. The third ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the medical certificate produced by the respondent was for a period of 30 days and that thereafter there was no bar for the respondent to appear. But the above contention looses sight of the fact that the ailment complained by the respondent was of asthma and a knee pain. The nature of the ailments is such that they are progressive and not of such a nature that can be cured at one stroke. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court hence the revision is dismissed. 26. The exception observed by this Court is that “in an age where chief- examination is permitted through affidavits the original philosophy surrounding the noting down of the demeanor of witnesses, has to some extent been diluted.” 27. Therefore, in the case in hand, the observation of demeanor of the petitioner/defendant is very much necessary by the presiding officer who has to render the judgment. It is also relevant to note that the ailment pleaded here is a nature that can be cured at one stroke and not progressive. Hence, the observation of this Court as extracted supra not applicable to the case in hand. But, in respect of observation of demeanor it is held against the petitioner and in favour of the contentions of the Respondent. 10 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch 28. It is further observed that since the petitioner is residing at Hyderabad which is far away i.e. approximately 400 KM from the Court below and the Advocate Commissioner who may be appointed cannot travel days together at the cost of his practice to cross-examine the petitioner. Since the petitioner attended all the functions as evidenced by the photographs filed by the learned counsel for the Respondent and he is aged about 57 years is not entitled for the relief as claimed in his application. 29. In view of the reasons stated above, the Civil Revision Petitions filed by the petitioners herein are liable to be dismissed for devoid of merits. 30. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 10th January, 2025 Knr 11 NV,J CRP No.1923_2024& batch HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITITON Nos.1923 of 2024 and batch 10th January, 2024 knr