GANESAN Vs. PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE civil revision petitioners/defendants 6 to 8 have filed the present revision as against the order passed in unnumbered I.A.No.--- of 2008 in I.A.No.1023 of 2007 in O.S.No.331 of 2007 on the file of District Munsif, Sankari dated 05.08.2008 in rejecting the same as not maintainable.

(2.) THE prayer of the revision petitioners/defendants 6 to 8 in the said unnumbered application is to the effect that they desire to cross examine the respondents/plaintiffs in regard to the documents filed by them in I.A.No.1023 of 2007. It appears that in I.A.No.1023 of 2007 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, nearly 7 documents have been marked on their side. Only at that stage, the unnumbered application I.A.No.--- of 2008 has been filed by the defendants praying for permission of the Court to cross examine the respondents /petitioners/plaintiffs.

(3.) IT is to be borne in mind that the ingredients of Or.19 R.2 of Civil Procedure Code apply for deciding an application for grant of temporary injunction under Or.39 of R.1 of Civil Procedure Code, besides the principles of natural justice having regard to the statutory provisions adumbrated in Section 30 and Or.19 R.1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code read with Or.39 R.1. IT is quite clear that a Court of law possesses power to call the deponent of an affidavit for cross examination, when an affidavit has been filed in support of an application under Or.39 R.1 of Civil Procedure Code. As a matter of fact, Or.19 R.2 enjoins "any application" and as such this expression will include within its ambit the application for grant of temporary injunction under Or.39 R.1 of Civil Procedure Code as well. In fact, R.2 of Or.19 of Civil Procedure Code does not exclude the application made under Or.39 R.1 in which facts may be proved by affidavit.' Therefore, the power of the Court to call the deponent for cross examination with an affidavit filed in support of application Or.39 R.1 of Civil Procedure Code is untrammelled and viewed in this perspective, this Court allows the civil revision petition and set aside the order of the trial Court in unnumbered I.A.No.--- of 2008 rejecting the same as not maintainable, since the view taken by it, is per se not correct in the eye of law.