( 1 ) THE decision of Madhusudan Rao,. J. , in C. Srinivasa Rao and others v. K. Manohar Rao and others, 1981 1 Ani. W. R. 388: A. I. R. 1981 A. P. 406. short notes at page 65 in C. R. P. No. 4261 of 1980 rendered on 7th April, 1981, appears to be correct and good law as against the decision rendered by Punnayya, J. , in S. V. Rao v. M. Appaswamy, 1977 2 An. W. R. 289: A. I. R. 1978 A. P. 103. Under the provisions of Order 19, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure, the Court has ample power to dispose of any matter including a matter falling under Order 39, Civil Procedure Code. On affidavits and also other evidence. Order 19, rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, expressly provides that evidence may be given by affidavit and the Court may at the instance of either party order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. I do not think the provisions of Order 39, rules 1 and 2, Civil procedure Code, exclude the application of order 19, Civil Procedure Code, to applications filed for temporary injunctions pending suits. Order 39, rule 1, Civil Procedure code, itself provides that the Court may grant a temporary injunction in any suit in respect of matters falling under claus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document