KORRA BHEEMA NAIK Vs. DEVAKATASHAM GIDEON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein were the plaintiffs, who had instituted O.S.No. 99 of 1993 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the respondent herein. The suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant-respondent herein filed I.A.No. 1276 of 1998 under Order 26 Rule 1 C.P.C. for appointment of a Commissioner for examination of two official witnesses. The said application was allowed. Hence the present revision has been filed by the plaintiffs- petitioners herein.

(2.) The learned Counsel Mr. P.S. Narayana appearing on behalf of the petitioners herein has taken me through the impugned order. By looking to the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Judge had passed the order directing the defendant-respondent herein to bear all the expenses of the plaintiffs Counsel as well as the expenses of the Commissioner. But Mr. P.S. Narayana submits that the presence of one of the plaintiffs will be required while the witnesses are being examined on commission. The expenses of one of the plaintiffs has also to be borne by the defendant-respondent herein. This Court agrees with the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners herein and direct the defendant-respondent herein to bear the expenses of the plaintiffs Counsel as well as one of the plaintiffs.

(3.) The observation made by the learned Judge in para 17 of his order is hereby expunged. The demeanour of the witnesses has to be observed by the Court and if it is observed by the Commissioner and report to that extent is filed in the Court, it will not be proper appreciation of demeanour of witnesses and moreover, the witnesses to be examined are Official Witnesses. Hence, their demeanour need not be observed.