1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 27.11.2013 whereby the Court below has allowed the application preferred under Order 19 rules1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and permitted him to cross-examine the persons who have filed their affidavits along with reply of application filed under Order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC.

2. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.1. The plaintiff stated that he is the owner of the house having half share and similarly his mother was having half share in the house. In her life time, mother Smt. Ganga Devi had executed a registered will dated 28.7.2007 in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, after the death of his mother, he became exclusive owner of the suit property. Accordingly, relief was claimed that plaintiff be declared as an exclusive owner and in possession of the suit property. In addition, a permanent injunction was sought to the effect that the defendant No.1 be restrained from making any interference in the suit property. He be restrained from alienating the same. On the aforesaid factual backdrop, plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC and prayed for temporary injunction to the effect that defendants be restrained from making any interference in possession of plaintiff and they be directed to maintain status quo with respect to suit property. In support of said application, plaintiff also filed an affidavit as well as documentary evidence. Copy of will is filed as Annexure P-4. In turn, the petitioner-defendant No.1 filed his written statement and reply to the application for temporary injunction. Averments of plaint and injunction application were denied. It is stated that will has been prepared by the plaintiff. In fact, no such will was ever executed by mother in favour of the plaintiff. The said reply is Annexure P-5. In support of said reply to the application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2 CPC, petitioner filed affidavits of attesting witnesses of the will namely Rafiq Khan and Vishal Gupta. In the affidavits, it is stated by said persons that the will has not been executed in their presence. Thus, they deposed against the will. At this stage, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 19 rule 1 CPC seeking permission to cross-examine the aforesaid attesting witnesses, who have filed affidavits contrary to reality. The present petitioner opposed the said application by filing reply. The Court below after hearing the parties on the said application, allowed the same by order dated 27.11.2013. The petitioner feeling aggrieved with said order preferred a review application under Order 47 rule 1 CPC (Annexure P-9). This application is also rejected by order dated 13.10.2014. Thus, order dated 27.11.2013 and 13.10.2014 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) are called in question in this petition.

3. Shri D.D. Bansal, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew attention of this Court on the language of Order 39 CPC. He also relied on Order 19 rules 1 and 2 CPC. By reading aforesaid provisions in juxta position, it is argued that order 39 does not contemplate any opportunity of cross-examination. Order 39 CPC makes it clear that word affidavit alone has been mentioned so that without going through the evidence, the Court may decide the matter of injunction pending disposal of the suit. In support of his contention he relied on AIR 1975 Allahabad 398 ( Abdul Hameed Khan v. Mujeed-Ul-Hasan and others), AIR 1978 Andra Pradesh 103 (Sakalabhaktula Vykunta Rao and others v. Made Appalaswamy), AIR 1994 Gauhati 52 (Rajib Barooah and another v. Hernendra Prasad Barooah and others), 1995 AIHC 360 (Bhairon Lal and another v. Chandmal and another), and AIR 2002 Allahabad 198 (Satya Prakash and another v. Ist Additional District Judge, Etah and others).

4. In nutshell, the submission of Shri Bansal is that order 39 CPC deals with aspect