1 VS,J CRP_2983_2024 APHC010534132024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2983/2024 Between: 1. UDDARAJU SUBHADRA, W/O PADMARAJU AGED ABOUT 69YRS.HINDU, HOUSE WIFE R/O D.NO. 8-3- 976/14SALIVAHANANAGAR, SRI NAGAR COLONY P.O HYDERABAD-500073. ...PETITIONER AND 1. BUDDARAJU CHANDRAVATHIDIED, (DIED) 2. KALIDINDI JAYALAKSHMI, W/O SUBBARAJU AGED ABOUT 67 YRS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O DURGADA (V)-533449, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL. KAKINADA DISTRICT. 3. KALIDINDI VENKATA GANGARAJU, S/O SUBBARAJU AGED ABOUT 38 YRS. HINDU, AGRICULTURE R/O DURGADA (V)-533449, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL. KAKINADA DISTRICT. 4. KALIDINDI VENKATAPATHIRAJU, S/O SUBBARAJU AGED ABOUT 39 YRS. HINDU, AGRICULTURE R/O DURGADA (V)-533449, GOLLAPROLU MANDAL. KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 VS,J CRP_2983_2024 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order Dt.27-09-2024 passed by the Hon'ble Xllth ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE PITHAPURAM in I.A.NO.289/2019 in O.S.No.75/2014 and consequently allow the same for appointing an advocate commissioner to record the cross-examination of PWl at her residence at Hyderabad and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.75/2014 on the file of the Hon'ble Xllth ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE : PITHAPURAM, East Godavari District, pending disposal of the main Civil Revision petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. K V SESHAGIRI RAO 2. The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CRP_2983_2024 ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 27.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.289 of 2019 in O.S.No.75 of 2014 on the file of Court of the XII Additional District Judge, Pithapuram. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff has originally filed a suit before the Court below in O.S.No.75 of 2014 against the respondents/defendants seeking relief for partition of the plaint schedule property into nine equal shares and to allot four such shares therefrom towards her share and for separate possession of the same by passing the preliminary and final decrees and for ascertaining of mesne profits. In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.289 of 2019 under Order XXVI, Rule 9 read with 151 of Civil Procedure Code, requesting the Court to appoint an advocate commissioner to record her cross examination at her residence as she is aged about 64 years and is suffering from severe arteritis problem. Vide order dated 27.09.2024, the Court below has dismissed the said application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by which, the present civil revision petition is filed. 3. Heard Sri. Papu Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. K.V. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. 4 VS,J CRP_2983_2024 4. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, initially I.A.No.589 of 2012 was filed before the Court below with a similar request as was done in I.A.No.289 of 2019, which was dismissed on 12.06.2013. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred a civil revision petition before this Court vide C.R.P.No.3497 of 2013, however, as the case before the Court below was transferred from Kakinada to Pithapuram, the petitioner had to withdraw the civil revision petition and subsequently the petitioner has filed a fresh application (I.A.No.289 of 2019) before the Court below with a request to appoint an advocate commissioner. But, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case, presuming that the petitioner has filed I.A.No.289 of 2019, without challenging the earlier dismissal order dated 12.06.2013, the Court below, vide order dated 27.09.2024 has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. As such, he requested to allow the present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Court below dated 27.09.2024 in all aspects and contended that the application filed by the petitioner before the Court below itself is not maintainable. As such, he requested to dismiss the present petition. 5 VS,J CRP_2983_2024 6. Admittedly, the petitioner/plaintiff herein has filed a suit before the Court below seeking the partition of the plaint schedule property into nine equal shares and to allot four such shares therefrom towards her share and for separate possession of the same by passing the preliminary and final decrees, for ascertaining of mesne profits. As the petitioner was aged about 64 years and was suffering from severe arthritis problem and was advised by the doctors to undergo knee operation, she filed I.A.No.289 of 2019 in O.S.No.75 of 2014 requesting the Court below to appoint an advocate Commissioner for recording her cross examination at her house. The Court below, while passing the order dated 27.09.2024 has observed that though the earlier application (I.A.No.589 of 2012) filed by the petitioner seeking the same relief was dismissed on 12.06.2013, the petitioner failed to challenge the same by filing a civil revision petition and as such, the Court below has dismissed I.A.No.289 of 2019. 7. Though the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to mention in I.A.No.289 of 2019 with regard to the filing of civil revision petition challenging the earlier order in I.A.No.589 of 2012, however, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff has furnished a copy of the order in C.R.P.No.3497 of 2013, dated 08.08.2013, which was withdrawn as the suit was transferred to another jurisdictional Court i.e. to Pithapuram. 6 VS,J CRP_2983_2024 8. As such, the observation made by the Court below in I.A.No.289 of 2019 that the petitioner without challenging the earlier order passed in I.A.No.589 of 2012 dated 12.06.2013 has filed another application with the same relief is unsustainable. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the age and illness of the petitioner herein, this Court feels it appropriate to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by directing the concerned Court below to appoint an advocate commissioner for recording the cross examination of the petitioner at her house. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:14.08.2025. Gss