Affidavits filed in support of an application are mere statements of fact and not 'evidence'. Cross-examination of a deponent is only permissible if the affidavit is a 'proof affidavit' under Order XIX of the CPC or if the witness is formally examined in chief.

The Court made the following ORDER:

K SREENIVASA REDDY, J.

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 06.01.2026 passed in IA No.1246 of 2025 in IA No.550 of 2025 in OS No.13 of 2025 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur.

2. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S. No.13 of 2025 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, seeking the following reliefs.

“a) direct the defendant in furtherance of agreement of sale, dated 24.04.2020 for receiving balance of sale consideration and for execution of regular registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff pertaining to suit schedule properties items Nos.1 to 4 under specific performance, on failure of the defendant, order to execute the same under due process of law.

b) directing the defendant in consonance of registered sale deed stated above pertaining to suit schedule properties items Nos.1 to 4 to deliver its possession to the plaintiff free from all disputes and loans, on failure of the defendant, order to do the same under due process of law.

c) granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, assignees, successors and his men from in any way alienating the schedule properties items Nos.1 to 4 to third parties under any circumstances.”

Pending the suit, the respondent/plaintiff filed IA No.550 of 2025, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, for grant of temporary injunction restraining the petitioner herein/defendant from in any way alienating the petition schedule property to third parties pending disposal of the suit. Along with the said application, the respondent also filed 3^rd party affidavits of Vaddi Pamuleti and Gosangi Venkata Subbaiah. It is the case of the petitioner that the said 3^rd party affidavits are without mentioning any Door numbers and Aadhar Cards and the signatures in the said two 3^rd party affidavits appear to be signed by one person causing rank forgery of alleged two 3^rd party affidavits. In connection with that, the petitioner herein/defendant filed IA No.1246 of 2025 in IA No.550 of 2025 in OS No.13 of 2025 seeking to summon the deponents of said two 3^rd party affidavits in order to cross-examine them and to produce their Aadhar Cards.

3. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed counter affidavit in the said petition, denying the petition averments and contending that the petitioner/defendant filed the present application with an intention to drag on the matter as much as possible, and recording of evidence of third parties does not arise.

4. By the impugned Order dated 06.01.2026, the learned II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, dismissed the said application on the ground that Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC is a summary procedure and recording of evidence of deponents of two 3^rd party affidavits does not arise on a mere suspicion that the signatures of deponents of two 3^rd party affidavits are forged one. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signatures on two 3^rd party affidavits are forged and there is discrepancy with regard to Aadhar Cards and Door numbers, hence the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition filed for cross-examination of the said deponents. In support of his contention, he relied upon a decision of this Court reported in Nadella Estate Private limited v. Prema Ravindranath (CRP Nos.2548 of 2014 and batch, dated 19.11.2014).

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and on correct lines and there are no sufficient reasons to interfere with the same. He further submits that 3^rd party affidavits filed in support of the petition are only statements of fact, which by themselves is not an evidence, hence the defendant is not entitled to file an application seeking permission to cross-examine the deponents. He submits that the applicant,