1. Heard Mr. SP Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dilip Mozumdar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.11.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No.52/2015 arising out of T.S. 53/2015. By the said order the petition No. 2337/16 dated 30.05.2016, filed by the petitioner- plaintiff under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC was dismissed.

3. A very lengthy argument was advanced by the both the learned counsel for the petitioner on the matter, which is otherwise a very minor issue involved in the case. The point involved is whether under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was incumbent on the part of the learned trial court to call for a deponent filing affidavit in support of written objection filed in injunction application to face cross examination by the petitioner-plaintiff.

4. The truncated facts, bereft of unnecessary particulars is that the petitioner herein had entered into an agreement with the respondents by virtue of which the respondents were to construct a multistoried multi-purpose building on the land of the petitioner. After substantial constructions had come up, disputes arose between the petitioner and the respondents. Hence, the petitioner instituted a suit for declaration, injunction, recovery of khas possession and other reliefs, which was registered as T.S No. 53/2015, and the same is pending for adjudication before the Court of the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati. In connection with the suit, the petitioner has also filed a separate application for grant of temporary injunction, and the same was registered as Misc.(J) Case No.52/2015. The respondents herein have filed their written objection in the said misc. case, which was supported by an affidavit.

5. Alleging that incorrect and false statement were made in the said written objection, the petitioner filed an application before the learned trial court under Order XIX Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC, being petition No. 2337/16 dated 30.05.2016, praying for summoning the deponent who has sworn the affidavit in support of the written objection filed in Misc. (J) Case No.52/2015. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court by an order dated 04.11.2016, impugned herein, was pleased to reject the said application, inter-alia, on the ground that the affidavit in support of the written objection cannot be treated as a testimony.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by extensively quoting the various statements made in the written objection filed by the respondents in Misc.(J) Case No.52/2015, and by quoting the various provisions of law and by quoting from various case law citations, it has been projected that the learned trial court had failed to consider the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the petition was rejected in a mechanical manner, without assigning any reasons. By reading out various statements made in the written objection, it has been submitted that false statements can only be exposed by permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the deponent who had sworn the affidavit. It is also submitted that the person who had sworn the affidavit in support of the written objection of the respondents did not file any copy of the Board resolution showing that he is authorized to swear such affidavit and to file such objection and, as such, it is submitted that these matters can only be thrashed out by cross-examination. Extensive argument has also been advanced to project the various alleged lapses and violations on the part of the respondents in fulfilling the terms of their agreement. In the opinion of this Court, it is absolutely not necessary to burden this judgment with the detailed arguments so advanced. The sum a