Allowed

Smt. T.Prabavathi v. Poosapati Haranarayana Raju

Telangana HC15 Feb 2013CRP/161/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge revision petition where the lower court refused appointment of an advocate-commissioner for cross-examination of an elderly plaintiff on grounds of case complexity. The highest court set aside the order, emphasizing the plaintiff's age and vulnerability, and directed a fresh order for recording evidence at the plaintiff's counsel's office.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; revision petition disposed of with direction to appoint an advocate-commissioner to record evidence at the plaintiff's counsel's office.

Smt. T.Prabavathi Vs Poosapati Haranarayana Raju — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 161 OF 2013

¶3

Dated: 15.02.2013

¶4

Between : Smt. T.Prabavathi. … Petitioner And Poosapati Haranarayana Raju and ten others … Respondents

¶5

The Court made the following:-

¶6

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 161 OF 2013

¶7

ORDER:

¶8

The plaintiff in O.S.No.165 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam is the revision petitioner. I.A.No.588 of 2012 filed by her under Order 26 Rule 2 of C.P.C. for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for the purpose of recording evidence of P.W.1 was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 14.11.2012. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the plaintiff.

¶9

Heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶10

Admittedly, the revision petitioner/plaintiff is a lady aged about 75 years. It is also not in dispute that she is a resident of Visakhapatnam, whereas, the suit is pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhimunipatnam. The plaintiff’s chief-affidavit as P.W.1 has been filed and the matter is now admittedly coming up for her cross-examination. The plea of the petitioner/plaintiff that she is suffering from high blood pressure and she is unable to move from her residence has not been seriously disputed by the defendants. However, the Court below declined to appoint the AdvocateCommissioner observing that the relief of declaration and mandatory injunction has been sought in the main suit relying upon several documents and since the matter involves complex facts and law, the appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner for examination of PW.1 is not desirable.

¶11

Having regard to the admitted fact that the plaintiff is a lady and is aged about 75 years, I am of the opinion that the Court below was not justified in declining to consider her request for appointment of Commissioner for her cross-examination merely on the ground that the

¶12

matter involves complex questions of fact and law.

¶13

Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead of examining P.W.1 at her residence, she may be examined even at the office of either the plaintiff’s counsel or the defendant’s counsel so as to suit the convenience of both the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not objected for the same.

¶14

Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to direct that an AdvocateCommissioner should be appointed to record the evidence of PW.1 at the office of the plaintiff’s counsel.

¶15

For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to pass a fresh order in I.A.No.588 of 2012 appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to record the evidence of the revision petitioner/plaintiff/PW.1 in the office of the counsel for the plaintiff in the presence of both the parties. No order as to costs.

¶16

Miscellaneous petitions, if any filed along with the revision petition, shall stand closed.

¶17

G. ROHINI, J

¶18

Date: 15.02.2013 sr/rns

¶19

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 161 OF 2013

¶21

15^th February, 2013

¶22

sr/rns

Smt. T.Prabavathi v. Poosapati Haranarayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. T.Prabavathi v. Poosapati Haranarayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Niranjan Singh, Vs a. Shivakoti Prasad

Ampolu Eswara Venkata Krishna Vs Kondru Prathima

Mohammad Madeena Vs Fatte Ahmed

Radi Balaraju, Vs Kolisi Mary

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju Vs Smt. T.Prabhavathi, W/o Tss Narayana Raju

G. Subrahmanyam Vs Ch. Vijaya Kumar