The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition to allow the C.R.P and to set aside the order and decretal order dated 11.04.2012 made in I.A. No. 892 of 2011 in O.S.No.453 of 2011 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Namakkal.

2. The Plaintiff is the revision petitioner. The plaintiff/petitioner filed the suit for permanent injunction. According to the revision petitioner, she has purchased the suit property from her husband Palanichamy under a registered sale deed dated 13.12.1994. The suit properties are situated with the registration department of Sub-Registrar, Paramathi, however, the plaintiff and her husband registered the sale deed at Parassala Sub-Register Office at Kerala State. Thereafter she is in absolute possession and enjoyment over the suit property. Since the respondent herein who has no right whatsoever with respect of the suit property attempted to interfere with the possession of the revision petitioner, she filed the above suit for permanent injunction.

3. It is the case of the respondent that he entered into an agreement of sale with the husband of the plaintiff with respect of the suit schedule property on 18.05.1994. Since the plaintiff s husband failed to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant, she filed a suit for specific performance against the said Palanisamy in O.S.No.523 of 1994 and the same was decreed on 21.01.1997. Against which the plaintiff s husband filed appeal in A.S.No.62 of 1997 and the same was dismissed on 28.11.1997. As against the same, a second appeal was filed in S.A.No.706 of 1998 and the same was also dismissed on 27.08.2008 by this Court. Thereafter the respondent herein filed E.P.No.57 of 2011 to execute the sale deed.

4. While so, the revision petitioner filed the present suit for permanent injunction against the respondent at the instigation of her husband Palanichamy as if she purchased the suit property, but no consideration was passed and thus the said sale deed is not valid in law.

5. Further, the plaintiff along with her suit has filed I.A.No.892 of 2011 for interim injunction and obtained an order of interim injunction. The contention of the respondent herein is that in the said interim injunction application, the plaintiff/revision petitioner has suppressed so many things, especially where the sale deed was executed and what is the relationship of her vendor. The intention of the plaintiff and her husband is that the respondent herein shall not be allowed to execute the decree in the E.P filed by her. Therefore, in order to elucidate the real fact to the Court, the respondent/defendant took out an application under Order.19, Rule 1 and 2 CPC in I.A.No.292 of 2012 to permit the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff on her affidavit filed under order 39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C.

6. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit to the said I.A and resisted the case of the respondent herein. Upon considering the arguments of both parties, the learned trial judge allowed the said I.A. by order dated 11.04.2012 and thereby permitted the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff. The said order is under challenge in this civil revision.

7. I heard Mr. T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the entire records.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial judge failed to consider the scope of Order.19, Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The Order 19, Rule 1 and 2 of CPC states as follows:

“Order - XIX

1. Power to order any point to be proved by affidavit. - Any Court may at the 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 condition as the Court thinks reasonable:

Provided that where it appears to the Court that entire party bona fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an