The correctness of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff in a suit should be determined during the trial and not at the interlocutory stage.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel for respondent/defendant no. 1.

2. Parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit. Plaintiff filed suit praying to grant decree to pay Rs. 87,10,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum by the defendant no. 1, to restrain the first defendant from alienating the rights of Telugu movie “SEKHAR” and to restrain defendant nos. 11 to 13 from screening the Telugu Talkie picture “SEKHAR.” Along with the suit, plaintiff filed three Interlocutory Applications i.e. 874 to 876 of 2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) praying to restrain defendants 11 to 13 from Telecasting/Transmitting the movie “SEKHAR” to restrain defendant no. 1 from alienating the Digital and Satellite rights to defendants 2 to 10 and to direct defendant no. 1 to deposit an amount of Rs. 87,10,000/- failing which to attach picture negative of the movie, respectively in three IAs. In I.A. No. 876 of 2022, the Court below asked the defendant no. 1 to show-cause why order of attachment before judgment should not be passed. Notice was served in the said I.A. but defendant did not choose to furnish security or showed cause against attachment and, therefore, by order dated 19.05.2022 Court below passed order of attachment before judgment.

3. Person by name Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy filed I.A. No. 365 of 2022 (old) under Order XXXVIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC praying to raise attachment order. The plaintiff counsel reported no objection for screening of the film provided screening proceeds are deposited in a bank account for securing the suit amount. Accordingly, said application was allowed directing the petitioner therein to open a separate bank account for keeping the amount derived from screening the film in that account to the extent of suit amount.

4. It appears, I.A. Nos. 874 to 876 of 2022 are coming up for filing counter-affidavit by the first defendant. Matters underwent few adjournments to enable the first defendant to file counter-affidavit. At that stage, defendant no. 1 filed I.A. Nos. 968 to 970 of 2022 under Rule 52 of Civil Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1980 praying to direct the plaintiff to present for cross-examination on the affidavits filed in support of I.A. Nos. 874 to 876 of 2022. I.A. No. 968 of 2022 is filed in I.A. No. 874 of 2022, I.A. No. 970 of 2022 is filed in I.A. No. 875 of 2022, I.A. No. 969 is filed in I.A. No. 876 of 2022.

5. First defendant alleges that various material averments in the plaint and affidavit filed in support of I.A. Nos. 874 to 876 of 2022 are false and incorrect, that the first defendant has never borrowed loan, never executed the pronotes and undertaking letters relied upon by the plaintiff, and that these documents are forged and fabricated only to bring out the suit with baseless allegations, which are intended to defame the first defendant and her family and to stop release of “SHEKAR” movie by any means. It is alleged that by playing fraud attachment before judgment order was obtained. First defendant therefore intends to seek leave of the court to direct the plaintiff to submit himself for cross-examination on the affidavit filed by him in three Interlocutory Applications.

6. This claim of the first defendant was opposed by the respondent/plaintiff by filing common counter-affidavit. Apart from dealing with the merits, he primarily contended that such application is not maintainable. It is further contended that on receipt of summons, first defendant failed to file counter-affidavit and dodging the matter. These petitions are invented only to dragon the matter as first defendant has no defence in three applications filed by the plaintiff.

7. The trial Court by orders impugned herein, directed the plaintiff to present before the Court on 22.07.2022 for cross-examination to prove the contents of the affidavit. On 02.09.2022, this Court passed order of interim suspension as pra