KOTINA APPA RAO Vs. KOTINA SRIRAMULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Ms. Prasanna, learned Amicus Curiae, appointed by this Court to assist the Court.

(2.) Revision petitioner-defendant in O.S. No.114 of, 1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota filed LA. No.38 of 2003 in O.S. No.114 of 1999 under Order 26, Rules 1 and 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter referred as 'the Code', to direct the Court at Agra, State of Uttara Pradesh to appoint a Commissioner to examine the hand-writing expert Sri Ashok Kashyap. The said application was opposed by the respondent- plaintiff and the learned Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota by the order dated 25-6-2003 allowed the application in part, appointing a Commissioner of the self-same Court on the ground that the said Court cannot direct the other Court at Agra to appoint a Commissioner. Assailing the same, the present revision petition is preferred.

(3.) Sri E. V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had explained the practical difficulty involved in the matter. The learned Counsel submitted that the suit is based on a promissory note and the defendant contended that the promissory note is a forged document. It is also represented that there are two conflicting opinions by two different experts. Learned counsel further submitted that in such circumstances, in view of the fact that huge expenditure may have to be incurred if the Commissioner is to be taken from Srungavarapukota to Agra, in the interest of justice, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Srungavarapukota could have exercised the discretion of at least making a letter of request to the concerned Court at Agra to appoint a Commissioner of the said place for the purpose of recording the evidence, instead of partly allowing the application for appointment of Commissioner, which virtually would amount to not to appoint any Commissioner at all in view of the huge expenditure involved in the matter.