PATABALLA GANGABHAVANI Vs. PUPPALA RAMACHANDRA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that, of late it has become a taboo for some Judicial Officers to undertake the recording of cross-examination by themselves. The note of caution sounded by this Court from time to time as to the perils of recording of cross-examination through commissions did not appeal to the learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur. In O.S. No. 257 of 2008 filed in the year 2008 for partition, the said Court has chosen to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner suo-motu, for recording the cross-examination of P.W.1. I.A. No. 448 of 2010 was filed by the said witness with a prayer to recall that order, the Officer was not prepared to deviate from the course adopted by her. Citing of the Judgments rendered by the Courts did not make any difference. The I.A. was dismissed on 8-7-2010. This is the unfortunate state of affairs, that the Judiciary finds itself in, thanks to the facility, provided for, in the Code of Civil Procedure, with the recent amendments. The petitioners challenge the said order.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) This Court takes serious exception to the approach adopted by the learned Trial Judge. It appears that the Officer is enjoying the facility of getting the cross-examination of witnesses also through commissions. Otherwise, one just cannot understand the reluctance on the part of the Court to cross-examine a witness in the Court, when she herself is coming forward. The logical projection of this would be that, days would not be far off, when the Advocates may be required to file draft Judgments and the Officer may choose the one, which he or she may like.