The provisions of Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 have no application to interlocutory matters governed by Order 39 Rule 1.

( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the District Muncif, Tekkali in I. A. No. 470/1976 in O. S. No. 75/1976.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit O. S. No. 75/1976 which was filed for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I. A. No. 369/1976 for the grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiff filed some affidavits in support of the above mentioned I. A. One of the affidavits was given by the Village Karnam. The learned District Muncif granted interim injunction and issued notice to the respondents-defendants who are the petitioners herein. The petitioners after receiving the notice, filed a petition for vacating the interim injunction. The petitioners-defendants filed I. A. No. 470/1976 requesting the Court to summon the Village Karnam so that they would cross- examine him, as his affidavit contained certain false averments. This petition was opposed by the respondents-plaintiff. The learned District Muncif gave the following reasons for dismissing it :" Absolutely there is no allegation to the effect that affidavits filed in support of the plaintiffs case are conflicting and that the deponents of such affidavits are absolutely necessary for cross-examining them. The apprehension of the petitioners seems to be that the Village Karnam is sailing with the plaintiff and that it is possible for him to tamper the Village Accounts. Their apprehension in that regard seems to be unfounded". It is this order that is assailed in this revision.

( 3 ) SRI Ranganatham, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are entitled to cross-examine the deponent with reference to the facts mentioned in the affidavit, as the petitioners felt that the affidavit contained false averments and as the Village Karnam brought into existence the adangals to fabricate the evidence in support of the plaintiffs case. He also contends that O. 19, Rr. 1 and 2 C. P. C. , give such power to the Court and hence the learned District Muncif committed jurisdictional error in not exercising the power given to it. He further contends that the reasons given by the learned District Muncif are contrary to law, as it is not necessary for the petitioners to show that the affidavits filed by the respondent-plaintiff are conflicting and that the Village Karnam may tamper the Village Accounts.

( 4 ) I do not think that the two reasons given by the lower Court refusing to summon the deponent who gave the affidavit to facilitate the petitioners-defendants to cross-examine him with reference to the averments in the affidavit are acceptable. It is not the law that if the affidavit s are conflicting, then the deponents should be summoned for cross-examination. If the affidavits on which the plaintiff-petitioner relies happen to be conflicting, the Court without any hesitation places in reliance on them and refuses to grant temporary injunction. In such a case, the need for cross-examining the deponents does not arise at all. Even with regard to the second reason that the petitioners apprehension that the Village Karnam tampers with the village accounts is unfounded. I have to say that it is irrelevant for the purpose of disposing of the petition.

( 5 ) BUT merely because the reasons given by the learned District Muncif for refusing to summon the deponents are unsustainable, it does not mean that the petitioners are entitled to be granted the relief prayed for, as the party, be it plaintiff-petitioner or defendant-respondent, cannot claim, as of right, the summoning of a person who gave an affidavit for the purpose of cross-examination when he desires the same. This legal position is quite clear from the provisions of O. 39, R. 1 C. P. C.

( 6 ) AS stated above, the respondent plaintiff filed the above cited interlocutory application requesting the court to grant temporary injuction against the petitioners and also filed some affidavits in supp