Honble SINGH, J.– The non-petitioners no.3 is not a necessary party to the present case. Therefore, it is not necessary to effect the service on the non-petitioners No. 3. The learned Counsal for the petititoners and the non-petitioners nos 1 and 2 agreed that the revision petition may be finally disposed of at this stage.

(2). Heard the arguments.

(3). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.1999 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.1, Jodhpur in civil misc. case no. 4/99 where by the application filed by the petitioner under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. was rejected.

(4). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. are applicable to the affidavits filed in support of the application under Order 9 Rule 2 C.P.C. It is further submitted by him that in the instant case, the plaintiff did not file any documentary evidence to prove the alleged tenancy and he chiefly relied on his own affidavit and, therefore, it was necessary to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff regarding the averments made by him in his affidavit and since this has not been done, the pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document