The trial court has no jurisdiction to summon the deponents for the purpose of cross-examination at the instance of the respondents in an application for interlocutory injunction.

JUDGMENT - P.S. SHAH, J.:---This revision application arises in the following circumstances.

2. On December 4, 1979, the petitioners filed against the respondents Civil Suit No. 277 of 1979 in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pimpalgaon in Nasik District, for a perpetual injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with petitioners possession over the suit land. The petitioners also filed an application for a temporary injunction pending the suit. On December 31, 1979, the respondents Nos. 1and 2 filed their say to the application for temporary injunction. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner to inspect the land and submit are port about the grievance of the petitioners that the respondents had removed certain parts of eastern fencing of their land. Mr. Gosavi, Advocate, who was appointed as a Commissioner visited the land along with the parties and their Advocates and after inspecting the land submitted his report along with the map on January 28, 1980. In support of their case, the petitioners filed affidavits of 12 witnesses and produced certain documents. The respondents also filed the affidavit of one witness on their behalf. On February 11, 1980, the respondent No. 1 and 2 filed an application at Exh. 27 for permission to cross-examine the Commissioner and the plaintiff. Thereafter, again on March 31, 1980, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed another application saying that one more witness of the petitioners Maganlal Harilal Mandvia whose affidavit was filed by them recently should also be examined in the Court. By its order dated April 14, 1980, the trial Court passed an order directing the petitioners to produce his witnesses including the Commissioner for cross-examination for hearing of the application for temporary injunction. The trial Court also directed that the respondents also should keep their witnesses present for cross-examination, if the petitioners desired to do so.

3. It is clear from the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 39 that ordinarily the evidence on interlocutory applications for injunction should be recorded on affidavits. Relying on certain decision viz. (Kanbi Mavji Khimji v. Kanbi Manjibhai Abjibhai)1, A.I.R. 1968 Gujarat 198 and (Sakalabhaktula Vykunta Rao v. Made Appalaswamy)2, A.I.R. 1978 Andhra Pradesh 103, it was urged by Mr. Agrawal that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to summon the deponents for the purpose of cross-examination at the instance of respondents Nos. 1 and 2. In any event, he submitted that there was no valid reason whatsoever for the trial Court to pass an order directing the petitioners to produce the witnesses including the Commissioner for cross-examination. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the trial Court displayed a total non-application of the mind on the part of the trial Court. Now it is clear that so far as the Commissioner is concerned, he had admittedly submitted his report on January 28, 1980, and the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had already given their say. All that is averred in the application, Exh. 27, is that the Commissioner had visited the spot over again along with the Advocate of the petitioners without notice to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Now, in this connection it must be noticed that the Commissioners report was on record and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted their say to that report. Assuming that the Commissioner had visited the site over again that by itself would not be a ground for calling the Commissioner for cross-examination. It was open to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to point out the deficiencies or the infirmities in the report of the Commissioner as they deemed fit. It would always be open to the Court to seek clarification from the Commissioner on certain points. It is also open to the Court to appoint a fresh Commissioner, if circumstances warrant such a course. However, no useful purpose can be served by calling the Commissioner for cross-examination at the interim stage on the me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document