Honble MILAP CHANDRA JAIN, J.—This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Munsif No 1, Jodhpur dated November 13, 1990 by which he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 19 Rule 2(1), C.P.C. for the cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits filed by the defendant-non petitioner in support of his reply to the plaintiff petitioners application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. C.P.C.

2. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the said application, the petitioner has a valuable right to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits for eliciting the truth. He further contended that the very fact that the non-petitioner has seriously opposed the said application indicates that the deponents of the affidavit could not have stood the cross-examination and the falsity of their affidavits would have been exposed. He lastly contended that it was not necessary to disclose the grounds or points for the cross-examination. He relied upon Ram Swaroop V. Bholu Ram (1).

3 In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner that it cannot be disputed that the court may order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponents but the provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 (1), C. P. C. do not empower the court to pass such an order in each and every case, the discretion has been given to the trial court and it has to be exercised in a judicial manner and not arbitrarily or whimsically. He further contended that no valid reason or ground was disclosed by the petitioner in bis said application and the application was moved for causing delay in the case. He lastly contended that the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion in this case, no jurisdictional error has been committed by it in rejecting the application and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order while exercising the powers under Section 115, C. P. C. He relied upon Manick Chandra Nandy V. Debdas Nandy (2), Pijush Kanti Gush V. Smt. Kinnori Mullick (3) and In re-Alu Bin Aifan (4).

4 It is well settled law that the provisions of Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply for deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, C.P.C. (Ram Swaroop v. Bholuram, supra) and the provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 (1), C.P.C. requiring attendance of the deponent for cross-examination are discretionary (Sultan Khan Vs. Brij Mohan) (5).

5. The scope of enquiry under Order 39 rr. 1 and 2, C.P.C is very limited and the rights of the parties are not decided finally. The court may order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponents for good reasons. If it appears to it that the application has been moved with the object of delaying the disposal of the matter or without bonafides, it will reject it. It has been observed in Sultan Khan v. Brij Mohan, (supra) as follows:-

"On the other hand if the provision contained in 0.19 R. 2 CPC, is taken to mean compulsion and as a rule cross-examination is allowed in interlocutory proceedings, there would be inveriably considerable delay in the disposal of the same and it is very likely that in a number of cases delay involved may defeat the object of the application. It is usual, however, to file counter affidavits by the opposite party in rebutting the allegations made in affidavits of the party moving the application. These considerations lean in favour of giving the word may its ordinary meaning in this Rule that is implying a discretion. I am, therefore, of the opinion that under Or. 19, R. 2, C.P.C. It is in the discretion of the court to order the attendance of the deponents for their cross-examination on the affidavits filed by them."

6. The learned trial court has observed in its order under challenge that the petitioner has no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document