ORDER : By this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner-defendant has prayed for setting aside the order dated 31-12-2024 in I.A.No. 483 of 2024 in O.S.No. 24 of 2019 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No. 24 of 2019 before the trial Court against the petitioner herein, who is defendant, seeking to declare that they are the absolute owners of plaint schedule property and to direct the petitioner-defendant to vacate plaint schedule property and handover possession of the same and for other reliefs. The petitioner-defendant is contesting the suit by filing a written statement. In the aforesaid proceeding, based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues and examined respondent No. 1 herein-plaintiff No. 1 as P.W.1 on 02-09-2024 and the cross-examination of P.W.1 has been deferred. Subsequently, the suit is being adjourned from time to time for cross-examination of P.W.1. While the suit stands thus, respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 filed I.A.No. 483 of 2024 under Order XXVI Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') seeking to appoint advocate commissioner for the purpose of recording evidence of P.W.1 in Court premises at Tirupati or at any suitable place as ordered by the trial Court. The petitioner-defendant filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that taking advantage of his medical condition, respondent No. 1 is avoiding his cross-examination in open Court. The trial Court allowed the above said interlocutory application by the order under revision. 3. Heard Sri K.Chetan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- defendant, and Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the caveators-respondent Nos. 1 and 2-plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2. 4. The party seeking issue of commission must satisfy the Court that this is such an exceptional case where Court has no other option but to issue a commission considering the special circumstances. The broad principles which must necessarily be kept in mind while exercising discretion in the matter of issuing of commission for the examination of a witness are that the person invoking it must be bone fide in making the application. The reasons why the witness cannot be examined in Court must be carefully considered. The broad principles which must necessarily be kept in mind while exercising discretion in the matter of issuing of commission for the examination of a witness are that the person invoking it must be bone fide in making the application. The reasons why the witness cannot be examined in Court must be carefully considered. Regard must be had to the conduct of the party and that it must be considered whether the examination on commission would result in manifest injustice to any party or is not calculated to permit the evidence being tested fairly or is likely to prove an abuse of process of Court. Justice above all is a paramount consideration and the discretion must be exercised in furtherance of the same in the particular facts and circumstances of an individual case. The test for rejection of the application should be that the application is not a bona fide one. 5. Sri K.Chethan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant, contends that if P.W.1 is allowed to be cross-examined by advocate commissioner, the trial Court would be deprived of an opportunity of noticing his demeanour and in support of his contention, learned counsel places reliance on the judgment of High Court of Gujarat in Kumarpal Mankelal Shah Vs. Kheemraj Ganeshmal Balar , [ (2011) 2 GLR 1479 ]. 6. One should not lose sight of the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4 of C.P.C. which is amended in 1999 and effective from 1 st July, 2002, where it says that the commissioner may record remarks as it thinks material respecting the demeanour of any witness while under examination provided that any objection raised during the recording of evidence before the commissioner, it may be recorded by him and it may be decided by the Court at the stage of arguments. Similarly, provision of Order XVIII Rule 19 is also relevant in this case which has been amended in 1999 effective from 1 st July, 2002. The said provision of Rule 19 is extracted below: "19. Similarly, provision of Order XVIII Rule 19 is also relevant in this case which has been amended in 1999 effective from 1 st July, 2002. The said provision of Rule 19 is extracted below: "19. Power to get statements recorded on commission:- Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Court may instead of examining witnesses in open Court, direct their statements to be recorded on commission under Rule 4A of Order XXVI." If provisions of Order XVIII Rule 4, Order XVIII Rule 19 and Order XXVI Rules 1 and 4-A (as amended) are conjointly taken up for consideration, it comes out that Court has been vested with wide discretion to issue commission for recording of evidence on certain specified circumstances if the Court's conscience is satisfied that the circumstances are such that it warrants appointment of commission. The Court has every right to differ from the ordinary rule of calling a witness into the witness box instead may issue a commission for recording of evidence. The will of the legislature, which has by amending the Code provided for recording evidence by the commissioner for saving Court's time taken for the said purpose, cannot be defeated merely on the ground that the Court would be deprived of watching the demeanour of the witnesses. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant also places reliance on the judgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in T. Srinivasa Rao Vs. T. Venkata Rangaiah and another, [2006 (5) ALD 823] to contend that appointment of commissioners to record the cross-examination of an otherwise able witness is prone to weaken the very adjudicatory process and it would naturally tell upon the quality of adjudication and that the question as to whether recourse should be had to such a measure would depend upon the pressure of work in the Court, the condition of witness i.e. the difficulty for him to appear before the Court, the nature of questions that may crop up during cross-examination, such as the occasion to overrule to sustain any objections, and determination as to the admissibility and relevancy of documents etc. It is no doubt true that when the witnesses are able to attend the Court, normally, they may have to be examined before the Court and during cross-examination, it would be advantageous for the Court to observe the demeanour of the witnesses. It is no doubt true that when the witnesses are able to attend the Court, normally, they may have to be examined before the Court and during cross-examination, it would be advantageous for the Court to observe the demeanour of the witnesses. It is also true that the learned Judge can also record the evidence while observing the demeanour of the witnesses. In the case on hand, respondent No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 is shown to be aged about 77 years in medical certificates and has been suffering from pancreatic cancer and it is also submitted before the trial Court that he has urinal issues. The plea that observing the demeanour of a witness by the learned Judge is not, however, a strong or social ground for refusing issue of commission for examination of respondent No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 if his application is taken into consideration when the plea has been taken by him that he is suffering from pancreatic cancer and urinal issues. Issue commission being a matter of discretion, each case has to be judged on its particular facts and ends of justice must undoubtedly be paramount consideration. The Court has got discretion to relax the rule only in the circumstances specified in the said rules under order XXVI of C.P.C. Such rules ought not to be relaxed or nullified because the witness is a man of rank or is a man of social status and that it will be derogatory to him or her to appear personally in Court. The case here is different. Here respondent No. 1- plaintiff No. 1 has not prayed for commission on the ground of rank or social status but for his genuine inability to appear before the Court due to his various old age ailments. When it is brought to the notice of the Court that a party due to pancreatic cancer and urinal issues is unable to attend the Court, refusing to issue a commission for recording evidence on the ground of demeanour in the considered opinion of this Court cannot be justified. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant have no manner of application in the present case as the facts and circumstances of the said cases are totally different from the present case. 8. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-defendant have no manner of application in the present case as the facts and circumstances of the said cases are totally different from the present case. 8. After taking note of the facts pleaded by the parties and taking note of the materials on record, this Court's conscience is satisfied that respondent No. 1 is bona fide in making the application and there is no reason to refuse to issue a commission for recording evidence of respondent No. 1-plaintiff No. 1 only on the ground that the Court would be deprived of watching his demeanour. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court has rightly allowed the interlocutory application and this Court does not find any error whether jurisdictional or otherwise in the order of the trial Court warranting interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India . 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, as the suit is of the year 2019, the trial Court is directed to specify the time within which the commission should complete the recording of evidence of P.W.1 and after the commissioner files report with the evidence, the trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.