ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner filed O.S.No.36 of 2001, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, against the respondents, for recovery of the amount covered by policy, taken out in the name of her husband, late Narahari. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner completed her side of evidence. On behalf of respondents, two applications were filed. I.A.No.676 of 2005 was filed, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to record the cross-examination of Dr. Vijaya Bhaskar, M.D.D.M, Consultant Pulmonologist of Medwin Hospital. I.A.No.675 of 2005 was filed, with a prayer to direct the said hospital, to produce the case sheet No. 9901351, before the Advocate Commissioner. The petitioner resisted the application. Through a common order, dated 8-12-2005, the trial Court allowed the applications. Hence, these two revisions.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. In view of the recent amendment made to C.P.C., through Act 22 of 2002, the chief-examination of witness in civil proceedings is invariably through affidavits. So far as the cross-examination is concerned, Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 18 C.P.C., leaves it open to the Court, either to record the same by itself, or to get it recorded through a Commissioner. Before the provision came to be amended, it was only in exceptional cases, that witnesses used to be examined on Commissions. As a consequence of the amendment to Rule 4 of Order 18 C.P.C., recording of chief-examination of witness is practically done away with. In the matter of recording of cross-examination, the Court is given the liberty, either to record it in the Court, or to get it recorded, through Commissioner.
4. In the instant case, the witness, whose cross-examination is sought to be recorded, is not party to the suit, and is a busy medical practitioner at Hyderabad. Requiring him to attend the Court at Miryalaguda, exclusively for the purpose of cross-examination, would result in serious inconvenience to him, apart from hardship. The very purpose of amending Rule 4 of Order 18 C.P.C., was to avoid such inconvenience and hardship, to witnesses.
5. So far as the application filed by the respondents, for handing over certain documents to the Advocate Commissioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that the documents are very much relevant and they need to be put to the concerned witness. It is not as if the petitioner does not have any opportunity to contradict the relevance or proof of the same. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision.
6. Therefore, the revisions are disposed of. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the petitioner, to raise all objections as to the purport of evidence of the witness, which is recorded through a Commissioner, as well as to the relevance, and other aspects of the documents, which were directed to be handed over to the Advocate Commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs.