LODHA, J.—This revision application is directed against an order of District Judge, Bikaner, dated 18-7-69, by which the plaintiff-petitioners prayer for cross-examination of the deponents on the affidavits, filed on behalf of the defendants-non-petitioners in connection with proceedings for appointment of a receiver, was disallowed.

2. The petitioner Sultan Khan filed a suit against Ibrahimkhan and Brij-Mohan for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts in connection with the transport business alleged to have been carried on by the parties in partnership. Along with the plaint, he also filed an application for appointment of a receiver and on this application the learned District Judge, Bikaner, made an order on 31-5-69 for appointment of an interim receiver and notice was given to the opposite parties to show cause why the order of the appointment of receiver be not made final. On receipt of the notice the defendants filed their reply on 11-7-69 and in support of their reply they also submitted the affidavits of both the defendants and one Umar Khan. By an application dated 12-7-69 the petitioner-plaintiff asked for cross-examination of the persons who had filed affidavits on behalf of the defendants and himself filed a counter affidavit on 17-6-69. The learned District Judge disallowed the petitioners application. He held that the provisions of order 19 rule 2, G. P. C. , were not mandatory and it was in the discretion of the court to allow or not to allow cross-examination in the particular circumstances of the case. He further held that the petitioner had already filed a counter-affidavit and no useful purpose would be served by permitting cross-examination. Aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge the petitioner has filed this revision application.

3. The only point which has been argued in support of this revision application is that the learned District Judge was bound to grant permission to the petitioner to cross-examine the deponents on the affidavits. He has urged that the word may used in O. 19, r.2, C.P.C., must be construed as shall and the court had no discretion in the matter. In order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner it would be proper to reproduce here Or.19, r. 2, C.P.C.,

"(1) Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross exami-nation of the deponent. (2) Such attendance shall be in Court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in Court, or the Court otherwise directs."

4. At one stage learned counsel argued that the petitioner has a right to cross-examine the deponents on their affidavits on the basis of the rules of natural justice. However, when faced with the observations of the their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammed(l) learned counsel had no option, but to give up this branch of his argument. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe.—

"The next point is as to the right of cross-exanination. This claim was first based on the rules of natural justice. It was said that these rules require that Bakshi Gulam Mohammed should have been given a right to cross-examine all those persons who had sworn affidavits supporting the allegations against him. We are not aware of any such rule of natural justice. No authority has been cited in support of it."

After referring to sec. 10 of the Jammu & Kashmir Commission Enquiry Act No 32 of 1962 their Lordships held that "that section gives a right to be heard, but only a restricted right of cross-examination and that the latter right is confined only to the witnesses called to depose against the person demanding the right." It was observed that the Act did not contemplate a right of hearing to include a right to cross-examine. In this view of the matter their Lordships came to the conclusion that no case had been made out by Bakshi Gulam Mo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document