MADHUSUDAN RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Karimnagar, in I. A. No. 1239 of 1979, in I. A. No. 929 of 1979, in O. S. No. 264 of 1979 on the file of this Court.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 264 of 1979, which is a suit for permanent injunction. He filed I. A. No. 929 of 1979 under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. for a temporary injunction pending suit. Along with the application for temporary injunction, he filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of third parties in proof of his possession. The respondent-defendant filed a counter along with his own affidavit and the affidavits of some others. The plaintiff thereupon filed I. A. No. 1239 of 1979 under Order 19, Rule 2, C. P. C. requesting the Court to order the attendance of the deponents on behalf of the defendant for his cross-examination. Relying on the decision of this Court in S. V. Rao v. M. Appalaswamy, AIR 1978 Andh Pra 103, the learned District Munsif dismissed the application holding that he has no jurisdiction to direct the attendance of the deponents, whose affidavits are filed in a proceeding under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. It is against this order of dismissal that the plaintiff has come up in revision to this Court.

( 3 ) SRI B. Prakash Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contends that, even in the case of affidavits filed underorder 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. , the Court has the power under Order 19, Rule 2, C. P. C. to summon the deponents for cross-examination and that the lower Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it on an erroneous impression of the law. Sri P. V. Narayana Rao, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contends that, in the case of affidavits filed under Order 39, Rule I, C. P. C. , no Court has any power to summon the deponents for cross-examination.

( 4 ) THE short question that arises for decision in this revision is whether, when affidavits are filed in a temporary injunction proceeding under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. , the Court has the jurisdiction, on the application of either party, to summon the deponents of the opposite party for cross-examination.

( 5 ) THE facts in dispute in a judicial proceeding are decided by the judicial tribunals by reference to evidence adduced by the contending parties. As defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, "evidence" means and includes-- (1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry; such statements are called oral evidence; and (2) all documents produced for the inspection of the Court; such documents are called documentary evidence. The media, through which the evidence of facts either disputed or required to be proved is conveyed to the mind of a judicial tribunal, consist of witnesses and documents. Affidavits of deponents are neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act. Proof or disproof of facts by affidavits is a departure from the normal rule and such departure is permissible only when the law specifically provides for the same. Affidavit evidence is permitted in writ proceedings, contempt proceedings and certain proceedings under the Arbitration Act. Generally, affidavit evidence is not permitted in proceedings of a substantial nature in so far as it is repugnant to the principles of natural justice that a Court should act on the statement of a person who has not been examined before it or whose statement has not been tested by cross-examination. In proceedings regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, as provided in Order 18, Rule 4, the ordinary rule is to record evidence in open Court in the presence and under personal supervision of the Judge. Order 19, Rule 1, C. P. C. , however, provides that "any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document