KODIPAKA VENKATESHAM Vs. PASULA NARSAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed O.S.No.19 of 2004, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge Siddipet, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. They are represented through General Power of Attorney, byname Pasula Kistaiah. The petitioner is the sole defendant in that suit. The trial of the suit commenced.

(2.) The G.P.A. of respondents 1 and 2 filed an affidavit, in lieu of his chief-examination. Simultaneously, he filed I.A.No.43 of 2005, under Order 26 Rule 1, read with Section 151 C.P.C., for appointment of a Commissioner, to record his cross-examination. He pleaded that he has undergone heart operation, and was advised bed rest, for six months. The petitioner opposed the application, by filing a counter affidavit. Apart from denying the alleged health condition of the GPA of respondents, they have also raised an objection, as to his competence to depose as P.W.1. Through its order, dated 21-4-2005, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P.

(3.) Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that Rule 4(2) of Order 18 C.P.C., as amended in the year 2002, cannot be resorted to, as a matter of course. He contends that the cross- examination of a witness, that too of first witness, in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, has its own significance, and except where extraordinary circumstances exist, the Courts would not be justified in appointing a Commissioner, for recording the cross-examination of such witnesses. He further contends that when a specific objection is raised, as to the very competence of the G PA to depose as P. W. 1, the trial Court did not advert to the same, and mechanically allowed the I.A.