Kopparapu Lalitha Devi v. Yeddla Seshamma (Died) Per Lrs

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI Civil Revision Petition No.870 of 2018 ORDER:

The unsuccessful petitioner - plaintiff filed this civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the order, dated 11.12.2017, of the learned VII Additional District Judge, Ongole, passed in IA.No.820 of 2017 in OS.No.68 of 2013, whereby her request for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record her evidence at her residence is rejected.

2.

I have heard the submissions of Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - plaintiff, and of Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 5. I have perused the material record. 3.

The facts necessary for consideration are as follows: - 'The petitioner is the sole plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. She is aged 92 years. On the grounds that she is of advanced age, that she is unable to move even in her residence, that she had already filed her affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, and that she is not in a position to attend the Court for her cross-examination, she sought for appointment of an advocate commissioner for recording her cross examination and re-examination etcetera. The contesting defendants have not filed any counter resisting the application. Yet, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the petition, having stated in his orders that the party should not be permitted to utilize the powers of Court to collect evidence and that the plaintiff who claims to be an old aged woman and who is not in a position to travel to Court can utilize the lift and wheel chair facilities that are available in the Court premises and that for senior

MSRM, J C.R.P.No.870_2018 citizens like the petitioner there is no inconvenience for attending to attend Court and give evidence. Aggrieved thereof and reiterating her submissions and complaining that the said order is erroneous and unsustainable, the present revision is filed.

4.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that the order impugned is a perverse order.

5.

Learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 5 - contesting defendants fairly stated that no counter is filed before the trial Court and that the fact that the petitioner is a woman of advanced age is not in dispute. 6.

Be it noted that the learned Additional District Judge ought to have granted the request of the plaintiff having regard to the submissions of the plaintiff, who is a woman of very advanced age and the further fact that the contesting defendants did not resist the application having regard to her condition. However, he dismissed the petition of the plaintiff on obstinate and not sound reasons. Hence, this Court finds that the order impugned brooks interference. It is represented that the suit is presently pending on the file of I Additional District Court, Ongole, since transferred to the said Court. 7.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed; and, the order impugned is set aside. As a sequel, IA.no.820 of 2017 in OS.no.68 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the learned I Additional District Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole, is allowed. The trial Court is now directed to appoint an advocate commissioner, having a standing of seven years or more, from the panel of advocates being maintained by it, for recording the cross-examination,

MSRM, J C.R.P.No.870_2018 re-examination and further examination, if any, of the plaintiff as per procedure established by law.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this revision petition shall stand closed.

__________________________ M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J 10.09.2018 Note: Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order to the learned I Additional District Judge, Prakasam, Ongole.

[B/o] Vjl