ORDER :-Aggrieved by the order dated 6.8.2007, passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, Mahabubnagar District, allowing the petition in I.A. No.54 of 2007 in I.A. No.187 of 2006 in O.S. No.62 of 2006, filed by the respondents under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. for the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination on his own affidavit, the petitioners filed this C.R.P.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs while the respondents are the defendants. It is the contention of the petitioners-plaintiffs that the Court below committed an error in allowing the present petition in I.A. No.54 of 2007 filed by the respondents defendants, and as such, it is liable to be set aside; while it is the contention of the respondents-defendants that the Court below in exercise of its discretion under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. has rightly allowed the I.A., the same being valid and in accordance with law, no interference is called for therewith, and the C.R.P. be dismissed.

3. Before adverting to the legal principle involved in this case, for better appreciation and adjudication of the matter in dispute, it is just and necessary, to refer to the relevant facts.

4. The present petition in I.A. No. 54 of 2007 was filed by the respondents defendants under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. seeking the relief, namely to cross-examine the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in LA. No. 187 of 2006 A reading of the contents of the present petition would reveal that the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction accompanied by an affidavit of one of the petitioners-plaintiffs, namely petitioner-plaintiff No.1, filed the petition in I.A. No.187 of 2006. The respondents defendants in the present I.A. stated that petitioner-plaintiff No.1 filed affidavit in the petition in I.A. No.187 of 2006 with false allegations and contended that the petitioners-plaintiffs are neither owners nor possessors of the suit property, and they have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property, i.e., the land situated in Sy. No. 27, Farjakhanpet Village. Therefore, they sought to summon petitioner-plaintiff No.1, deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A. No.187 of 2006, filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction, to enable their Counsel to cross-examine the deponent, to find out the true facts of the case.

5. The petitioners-plaintiffs filed counter to the I.A. opposing the relief sought for by the respondents-defendants, and reiterated their stand that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule property to an extent of one acre. They further stated that their father was the owner of the suit schedule property, and was in possession thereof till his death, and they succeeded to the said property as his legal representatives upon his death. They denied the averments made by the respondents-defendants in the affidavit filed in support of the present petition, and prayed for dismissal of the I.A.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs and the learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants, and considering the stand taken by the respective parties, the following two questions arises for consideration in the CRP:

(1) Whether the Court below was justified in ordering the present I.A. filed by the respondents-defendants under Order XIX, Rule 2 C.P.c. holding that the respondents-defendants' Counsel is entitled to cross-examine the petitioner-plaintiff No.1, who swore to the affidavit filed in support of the petition in LA. No. I 87 of 2006 filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for grant of temporary injunction? and

(2) Whether the present petition filed by the respondents-defendants is within the ambit and scope of Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C?

7. Before adverting to the above two questions, a reference to the provisions Order XIX Rule 2 CPC, which deals with the power of the Court to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination, would be appropriate, and the same reads as follow

Click Here to Read the rest of this document