1983 Supreme(AP) 103

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO
Pijush Kanti Guha - Appellant
Versus
Kinnori Mullick - Respondent
.
Decided On : 03-14-83
.

Headnote:CPC, O 17, R 1 - Adjournment of case - Absence of senior lawyer or his engagement elsewhere cannot be a ground for adjournment particularly when other party s lawyer is present and ready to proceed with the hearing

       CPC, O19, Rr1,2, O 39, R1 - Temporary injunction 1:vidence on affidavits-Summoning deponent for cross-examination Discretionary

       HELD : In a proceeding under Order 19 there is discretion left with the Court and no applicant would have the absolute right to claim examination of a deponent on his affidavit as filed It is only the Court concerned who can decide, if in the facts of a given case, evidence of the deponent of an affidavit should be taken or not The provisions of Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 cannot be resorted to when and where the Court is expressly permitted to decide interlocutory matters on affidavit, either party to such a proceeding would not have any absolute right to cross-examine the concerned deponent of course proceedings under O 19, Rr 1 and 2 can be resorted to by agreement amongst parties or their consent

       In terms of Order 19 ordinarily the Court is empowered to have a fact proved by affidavit The provisions of Rule 1 are not subject to the proviso If there are sufficient and appropriate reasons, the Court may direct proof of some fact or facts by affidavits, but certainly not the case in its entirety Such order under Rule 1 would be possible in some permissible circumstances and more particularly such permissible circumstances would mean exceptional or extraordinary circumstances Evidence through affidavit would not be permitted without an order of the Court and the same would re allowed when the parties to the proceedings agree to such filing of affidavit evidence