JUDGMENT : 1. With consent, the matter is finally heard. 2. This is a petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 7-11-2012 (Annexure P-11) passed by Second ADJ, Gadarwara, Distt. Narsinghpur in Civil Suit No. 12-A/10, whereby respondents' application dated 16-10-2012 was allowed and accordingly, petitioner's right to lead further evidence was closed. 3. The suit has been filed by the petitioner for declaration of title in respect of a house and permanent injunction restraining the respondents from alienating/transferring the house or from interfering with his possession thereon in any manner. Upon his request, vide order dated 12-10-2011, Shri T.S. Thakur, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner for recording of cross-examinations and re-examinations of his witnesses, whose chief-examinations were furnished by way of affidavits. However, this exercise is yet to be completed. 4. Observing that delay is attributable to the petitioner inasmuch as he had failed to keep the witnesses present before the Commissioner, vide order dated 18-1-2012, the Trial Judge closed petitioner's right to adduce evidence. This order was interfered with by way of an order passed in W.P. No. 1833/12 on 16-3-2012 (that was modified vide order dated 19-4-2012 in Review Petition No. 336/2012) and in the interests of justice, last opportunity was granted to the petitioner for the purpose subject to payment of costs of Rs. 750/- with a further direction that he shall keep present all his witnesses on 26-4-2012. 5. According to the petitioner, summons to one of the witnesses namely Jagdish could not be served as he had gone out of station whereas the other witnesses namely Manoj Dubey, the Document Writer and Sheikh Raheem, one of the Attesting Witness of the Will relied on by him, failed to appear despite service of respective summons. However, fact of the matter is that the order dated 12-10-2011 casted an obligation on the petitioner to produce the witnesses before the Commissioner. Even otherwise, as explained in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. However, fact of the matter is that the order dated 12-10-2011 casted an obligation on the petitioner to produce the witnesses before the Commissioner. Even otherwise, as explained in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India, AIR 2003 SC 189 :- "Reading the provisions of Order 16 and Order 18 together, it is evident that Order 18 Rule 4 (1) will necessarily apply to a case contemplated by Order 16, Rule 1-A, i.e., where any party to a suit, without, applying for summoning under Rule 1 brings any witness to give evidence or produce any document. In such a case, examination-in-chief is not to be recorded in Court but shall be in the form of an affidavit..... Whether a witness shall be directed to file affidavit or be required to be present in Court for recording of his evidence is a matter to be decided by the Court in its discretion having regard to the facts of each case." 6. The Rule, i.e., Order 18, Rule 4(1) providing inter alia for filing of chief-examination of every witness in the form of an affidavit; for recording of his cross-examination and re-examination by a Commissioner to be appointed by the Court was introduced with a view to reducing consumption of judicial hours in the process of recording of oral evidence but experience shows that the hope is wholly belied. 7. Further, in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 , the Supreme Court, while declaring that the amendments brought into effect by the Amending Act of 2002 were constitutionally valid, proceeded to lay down various guidelines for streamlining the new procedure to be followed for recording of evidence in civil cases. The relevant excerpt reads as under :- "The power under Order 18 Rule 4 (2) is required to be exercised with great circumspection having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not necessary to lay down hard and fast rules controlling the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commissioner to record the cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses. The purpose would be served by noticing some illustrative cases, which would serve as broad and general guidelines for the exercise of discretion. It is not necessary to lay down hard and fast rules controlling the discretion of the Court to appoint a Commissioner to record the cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses. The purpose would be served by noticing some illustrative cases, which would serve as broad and general guidelines for the exercise of discretion. For instance, a case may involve complex questions of title, complex questions in partition or suits relating to partnership business or suits involving serious allegations of fraud, forgery, serious disputes as to the execution of Wills etc. In such cases, as far as possible, the Court may prefer to itself record the cross-examination of the material witnesses and the prayer for recording evidence by the Commissioner may be declined by the Court." (Emphasis supplied) 8. Accordingly, the order dated 12-10-2011 also deserves to be nullified in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case including performance of the Commissioner and conduct of the petitioner and his witnesses. 9. The petition, accordingly, succeeds but in addition to the order in question, the order dated 12-10-2011 (supra), appointing Shri T.S. Thakur as Commissioner is also set aside. Instead, it is directed that the Trial Court itself shall record cross-examinations and re-examinations for the remaining witnesses of the petitioner on the next date of hearing. 10. 'Needless to say that- (a) the witnesses shall be produced by the petitioner himself without applying for summons, (b) no further opportunity shall be granted to him, and (c) payment of costs shall be a pre-condition to further prosecution of the suit. 11. Now, the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 14-5-2013 at 11 a.m. positively. C.C. as per rules.