Judgment :- M.CHOCKALINGAM, J. 1. Challenge is made to an order of the learned Single Judge of this Court made in A.No.6388 of 2009 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for examination of the appellant/first defendant at her residence. The said application, on enquiry, was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and looked into the materials available and in particular the order under challenge. 3. As could be seen from the available materials and the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, it was a suit for partition, and the same was filed in the year 1992 and pending for nearly about 18 years. The appellant is the first defendant. She alleged that due to her ill-health, she did not attend Court or in a position to give evidence in Court, and hence it became necessary to file the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. 4. The other side opposed the application strongly stating that the health condition of the appellant was perfectly all right; that in fact, she had a trip to Dindigul and returned to Chennai on 1.12.2009; that apart from that, she has not rendered accounts in the long past; that equally an application was filed in the year 2006 for the same relief; but, it was dismissed as not pressed; that under the circumstances, the attempt now made by the appellant was a vexatious one, and hence it was to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge after appraisement of the facts and circumstances, has dismissed the application and in the considered opinion of the Court, rightly too. 6. It is a suit for partition pending for a period of 18 years. Already, the appellant had filed an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of her examination at her evidence; but, that was dismissed as not pressed. Now, again another application has been brought forth by her for the same relief stating that because of ill-health, she could not be able to come to Court or give evidence. It is also further alleged that she was suffering from regular bouts of high blood pressure and hyperthyroidism and also developed pains in the joint. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that no medical certificate was produced by her in order to prove any one of the same. It is also further alleged that she was suffering from regular bouts of high blood pressure and hyperthyroidism and also developed pains in the joint. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that no medical certificate was produced by her in order to prove any one of the same. It is also not disputed that she was travelling to Dindigul and returned to Chennai on 1.12.2009. Hence the learned Single Judge has pointed out all the reasons and found that the request put forth by the first defendant/appellant was not justified and hence dismissed the application. This Court is unable to notice any reason to interfere with the same. 7. Now, at this juncture, the learned Counsel brought to the notice of the Court that she is a pardhanasin lady, and it is very difficult for her to be examined in Court and hence necessary directions have got to be given in that regard. Under the circumstances, it would suffice to issue a direction to the learned Master that the matter can be posted on a particular day, and within a short interval of a day or two, the examination of this witness both chief and cross could be finished, and he can also take into consideration that she is a pardhanasin lady. Accordingly, a direction is issued, and this original side appeal is disposed of leaving the parties to bear their costs. Consequently, connected MP is closed.