C.R. Sarma, J.

1. Heard Mr. S B Rahman, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. The respondent, as plaintiff, instituted T.S. No. 152 of 2012 against the petitioner/defendant, in the court of the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, seeking a decree for declaration and cancellation of the alleged sale deed, agreement for sale, power of attorney and also for partition of the suit property (Schedule -B land), recovery of khas possession and permanent injunction.

2. In the said suit, the plaintiff, by seeking a temporary injunction, filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short CPC). The said application for injunction has been supported by an affidavit.

3. The contesting opposite party/defendant No. 15 i.e. the present respondent, by filling an application under Order 19 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC, prayed for permission for cross-examining the deponent of the said affidavit, who was the attorney of the plaintiff petitioner (respondent in the petition).

4. The plaintiff/petitioners No. 1 and 3 to 9, in the suit/Misc. case, by filing an objection, resisted the said prayer on the ground that Order 19 Rule 2 CPC does not permit cross-examination of the deponent of the affidavit, unless evidence is adduced by an affidavit.

The learned civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, after hearing both the parties and considering the entire aspect of the matter allowed the prayer, made by the defendant/opposite party No. 15 and directed the said deponent of the affidavit i.e. present petitioner, Md. Mubarak Hussain to appear for cross- examination.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the deponent of the affidavit, as petitioner, has come up with this civil revision petition.

6. Mr. S B Rahman learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that the learned trial Judge misread the provision prescribed by Order 19 Rule 2 CPC and wrongly held that the deponent of the affidavit, who filed the same in support of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, can be cross examined by the opposite party.

The learned counsel for the petitioner, referring to the decision, held in the case of Rajib Barooah and another versus Hernendra Prasad Barooah & Ors., reported in AIR 1994 Gauhati 52 has submitted that the courts dealing with the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC has to dispose of the matter regarding injunction on the basis of the affidavit or otherwise without examination and cross examination of the witnesses, including the deponent of the affidavit. In support of his contention, the learned counsel has also referred to the decision held in the case of Shetty Chandra Shekar & Ors. v. Neeti Ramulu & Ors, reported in 2008 (2)ALD 709.

7. Refuting the said argument, advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent, referring to the decision, held in the case of Ayaaubhkan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharastra & Ors, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 and Rajeswar Rabha v. Khagen Chandra Kalita & Ors. reported in (1992) 1 GLR 334 has submitted that as the plaintiff i.e. the present petitioner, in support of his prayer for injunction, filed an affidavit towards proving the allegations, made in the said application, in order to negate the contention made in the application for injunction, the defendant/opposite party, for the ends of justice, he is to be allowed to cross-examine the deponent of the aforesaid affidavit.

8. It is also submitted that, in view of the provision laid down in Order 19 Rule 2 CPC, the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of his contentions, made in an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and2 CPC, can be allowed to be cross-examined.

9. In the case of Rajib Barooah and another (supra), a learned single Judge of this Court, while considering the prayer for cross-examination of the persons mentioned in the schedule to the petition,