K. RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S. No. 472 of 2014 pending on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Puducherry.

2. The petitioner filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 175 of 2014 seeking for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. In the said application, the defendants filed another application in I.A. No. 219 of 2014 under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC to direct the plaintiff to attend the Court for cross-examination. It is their contention that the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking for interim injunction has to be construed as an affidavit filed under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC and therefore, the plaintiff should be directed to attend the Court for cross-examination.

3. The Trial Court allowed the said application by holding that unless the deponent of the affidavit is exempted from personal appearance in the Court, the Court can direct such person to attend the Court for cross-examination.

4. Mr. S. Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking for temporary injunction is not an affidavit as referred under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC and therefore, the plaintiff cannot be compelled to submit himself for cross-examination by the defendants. He further submitted that the plaintiff has not filed any proof affidavit as witness in support of the said application and therefore, the question of cross-examining the plaintiff would not arise.

5. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan and Others, (1988) 3 SCC 366 and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court reported in K. Rajagopalan vs. Gnanapandithan, 2014 (4) CTC 315.

6. Per contra, Mr. Govindarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff seeking for interim injunction by filing an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, having filed an affidavit in support of such application is bound to submit himself for cross-examination, as such affidavit has to be construed as an affidavit as contemplated under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC.

7. Heard the learned counsels appearing in either sides and perused the materials placed before this Court.

8. The point for consideration in this Civil Revision Petition is whether the affidavit filed in support of interim application, in this case for seeking interim injunction, has to be construed as an affidavit of the deponent as contemplated under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC. For proper appreciation of the issue involved in this case, the relevant provision under Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 CPC are extracted here under:-

ORDER XIX – AFFIDAVITS

1. Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit — Any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable:

Provided that where it appears to the Court that either party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorizing the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit.

2. Power to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination —

(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-examination 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.

While considering the scope of Order 19 Rule 1 CPC, it is seen that any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any par