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 present petition deserves to be admitted and allowed.

(5). The learned counsel for the non-petitioners nos. 1 and 2 opposed the present revision petition on the ground that apart from the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the alleged ten- ancy. It is further submitted by him that the application moved by him that the application moved by the petitioner did not contain any good reasons for granting permission to the petitioner to cross- examine the plaintiff under Rule 2 of Order 19 C.P.C. Lastly it is submitted by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners nos. 1 and 2 that the scope of a revision petition u/S.115 C.P.C. is very limited and in the present case, there is no jurisdiction for allowing the revision petition.

(6). There is no dispute between the parties that in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ramswaroop and Ors. vs. Bholu Ram (1) the provisions of Order 19 C.P.C. are applicable to an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39 C.P.C. A learned single Judge of this court in Smt. Sudha and anr. vs. Manmohan and Ors. (2) has taken a similar view but made an observation to the effect that the discretion available to the court under Order 19, Rule 2 C.P.C. is not arbitrary but judicial discretion having justice oriented approach should be exercised in summoning the deponent in affidavit for cross-examination. The learned Single Judge has further pointed out that an order for attendance of the deponent for cross-examination would be ordinarily made unless the court is satisfied and convinced that the application for summoning the depo- nent for cross-examination is bonafide and summoning of the deponent for cross- examination is necessary in the interest of justice and unless both these conditions are satisfied, the Court would not be justified in making an order under Order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C. for cross-examination of the defendant. In Chhotu Khan vs. Abdul Karim (3) a learned Single Judge of this court held that under order 19 Rule 2 C.P.C., the court may order the attendance of the deponent for the cross-examination but the learned Single Judge has drawn the attention to the following observations of the Honble Supreme Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. Ajit Prasad.

`In our opinion , the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the first appellate court. It is not the conclusion of the

High Court that the first appellate court had no jurisdiction to make the order that it made. The order of the first appellate court may be right or wrong; may be in accordance with law or may not be in accordance with law; but one thing is clear that it had jurisdiction to make that order. It is not the case that the first appellate cour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document