APHC010378642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Between: 1. RUDRARAJU VENKATARAJU, CULTIVATION, GODILANKA VILLAGE DR.BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT 1. PENUMARTHI PRABHAKARAM, S/O.PARTHASARADHI, 58 YEARS, CULTIVATION DR.BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.PARDHA SARADHI A V Counsel for the Respondent: -None- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 1832 of 2025 RUDRARAJU VENKATARAJU, S/O.SUBBA RAJU, AGED 65 YEARS, CULTIVATION, GODILANKA VILLAGE, ALLAVARAM MANDAL DR.BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND PENUMARTHI PRABHAKARAM, S/O.PARTHASARADHI, CULTIVATION, INAPURAM, MUMMIDIVARAM DR.BR AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: PARDHA SARADHI A V Counsel for the Respondent: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA No: 1832 of 2025 SUBBA RAJU, AGED 65 YEARS, ALLAVARAM MANDAL, ...PETITIONER PENUMARTHI PRABHAKARAM, S/O.PARTHASARADHI, INAPURAM, MUMMIDIVARAM, ...RESPONDENT 2 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner who is the defendant in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Senor Civil Judge, Amalapuram filed the present Revision Petition, aggrieved by an order dated 01.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.44 of 2024 in O.S.No.11 of 2013. 2. The respondent / plaintiff filed the said suit for recovery of money on the foot of a Pronote. The petitioner / defendant filed written statement. He filed the above referred miscellaneous application under Order XXVI Rule 10-A r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the chief and cross examination of Smt.S.S.Latha, Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, at her office. The respondent / plaintiff filed a counter and resisted the said application. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division ) by an order dated 31.07.2024 appointed an Advocate Commissioner for recording of evidence of expert and fixed the fee at Rs.2,000/-. The learned Advocate Commissioner vide Memo dated 01.07.2025, returned the warrant by stating the reasons in the said Memo. Thereafter, vide Order dated 01.07.2025, the Learned Trial Court dismissed the I.A., for default and for non-cooperation of the Advocate Commissioner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of personal notice, none entered appearance on behalf of the respondent. 3 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the specific averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., and the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Revision Petition. He inter alia contends that the learned Trial Court went wrong in dismissing the I.A., in question on the premise that the petitioner / defendant is not cooperating for execution of the warrant. He submits that the learned Trial Court on a misconception and without taking into account the relevant aspects / circumstances which made the learned Advocate Commissioner to return the warrant, erroneously dismissed the I.A., under a wrong impression that the petitioner / defendant is not cooperating with the Advocate Commissioner. He submits that the main reason for returning the warrant is fixing of Rs.2,000/- fees, which according to the learned Advocate Commissioner is meagre and in such circumstances, on receipt of the Memo, the learned Trial Court atleast ought to have increased / enhanced the fees of the Advocate Commissioner and issued appropriate directions for execution of the warrant. He further submits that if the learned Advocate Commissioner had returned the warrant without executing the same on the ground that the fee fixed is very meagre, the petitioner / defendant cannot be blamed for the same and should not be subjected to prejudice or hardship. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order. 5. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 4 6. On an appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the order of the Trial Court impugned in the present Revision Petition is valid or warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. On a perusal of the material on record, it is seen that the Advocate Commissioner was appointed after contest between the parties and it appears that the same is not challenged by the respondent / plaintiff. Pursuant to the said appointment, the Advocate Commissioner is required to execute the warrant. From a reading of Memo dated 01.07.2025 filed by the Advocate Commissioner, it appears that a copy of the report of the expert along with the warrant was not furnished by the Court to him and therefore he was not in a position to send notice to the handwriting expert. In the Memo, he also stated that it is not possible to execute the warrant at Hyderabad with a meagre fee of Rs.2,000/-. No doubt, it is also mentioned that the counsel for the petitioner / defendant is not in touch with him. Irrespective of the same, from a reading of the Memo, it is quite obvious that the learned Advocate Commissioner returned the warrant as the fee fixed was Rs.2,000/- only, and his grievance in that regard is justified. Be that as it may. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the learned Advocate Commissioner filed a Memo stating that the fee fixed was meagre, the learned Trial Court ought to have taken the same into consideration and enhanced the fee by taking the travel expenses etc., apart from his remuneration / fee for recording the 5 evidence. The learned Trial Court instead of adopting such a course of action, throwing the entire blame on the petitioner, dismissed the I.A., and the same is not tenable, as such calls for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point is answered. 8. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, with liberty to the petitioner / defendant to file fresh application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. If such a course of action is adopted, the learned Trial Court shall consider the same afresh, strictly in accordance with the Law, after giving a due opportunity to both sides. 9. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA BLV Dt. 26.09.2025 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P. No: 1832 of 2025 Date: 26.09.2025 BLV