Heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Piyush Garg, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The respondent no.1 filed a suit for possession alleging that he is the owner of the property in question. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. The trial court, after hearing the parties, granted an injunction in favour of the respondent no.1 restraining the petitioner from interfering in the possession of the property with the plaintiff respondent no.1.

3. It is alleged that the petitioner interfered in the possession of the plaintiff and violated the temporary injunction. Respondent no.1 accordingly filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. praying that there has been a breach of the order of the court by the petitioner and that contempt proceedings should be initiated against him. In support of his contention, certain affidavits of witnesses were filed by way of evidence. In response to these contempt proceedings, the defendant petitioner filed an application 69C praying that he may be permitted to cross examine these persons who have filed the affidavits in support of the contempt application. The reason for cross-examining the witness has been given in paragraph 9 of the application 69C, which is extracted hereunder:-

"9. That allegation made in the present application is baseless and vague. Applicant has filed certain affidavits before the learned court in support of his contention but failed to produce any witness in the witness box for cross examination. Unless witness enters into the witness box, his testimony or contents of the affidavit cannot be relied upon."

4. The trial court, after considering the matter, rejected the application 69C holding that the contempt proceedings are summary in nature and that the procedure for cross-examining the witnesses as provided under the C.P.C. is not applicable in these summary proceedings. The defendant petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

5. The basic issue which arises for consideration is, "whether the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in the contempt proceedings initiated under Order 39 Rule 2A of the C.P.C. or not". Section 141 of the C.P.C. gives a clear indication about applicability of the C.P.C. For facility, the said provision is extracted hereunder:-

"141. Miscellaneous proceedings. - The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. "

Explanation. -In this section, the expression "proceedings" includes proceedings under Order IX, but does not include any proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution."

6. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it shows that the procedure provided in the C. P.C. in regard to suits shall be followed as far as possible in other proceedings. The word 'proceedings' as contemplated under Section 141 of the CPC would include the procedure under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and, therefore, to that extent, the Code of Civil Procedure will apply.

7. In Ram Chandra Aggarwal Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1966 SC 1888, the Supreme Court held that

"6. Though there is no discussion, this Court has acted upon the view that the expression "civil proceeding" in Section 141 is not necessarily confined to an original proceeding like a suit or an application for appointment of a guardian etc., but that it applies also to a proceeding which is not an original proceeding. Thus, though we say that it is not necessary to consider in this case whether the proceeding before the civil court is a civil proceeding as contemplated by Section 141 or not there is good authority for saying that it is a civil proceeding."

8. The words "as far as it can be made applicable" used in Section 141 of the C.P