PATHANGE MOHAN KRISHNA RAO Vs. SMT. NAVALE SREEVANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 14.03.2016 in I.A.No.206 of 2016 in I.A.No.3812 of 2015 in O.S.No.88 of 2015, wherein the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/4th defendant in the suit under Order 19, Rule 2 of Civil P.C. to direct the 1st respondent/1st defendant to appear before the court to cross-examine her to elicit the truth in the contents of her affidavit filed in I.A.No.3812 of 2015.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as arrayed in the interlocutory application. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the 4th defendant in the main suit and defendants 1 and 3 in the main suit filed a petition in I.A.No.3812 of 2015 praying the Court to direct the defendants 5 to 7, who are tenants to pay rents to the 1st defendant in respect of the petition schedule property or to deposit the rents into the Court to withdraw the same by the 1st defendant. In order to ascertain the truth, cross-examination of 1st defendant is very much necessary. Hence, the petition.

(3.) The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed counter denying the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition stating that the petitioner is not having good terms with his parents and sisters for the last four years and that he is not aware of the health condition of the 2nd respondent i.e., 1st defendant in the suit. It is also stated that Order 19, Rule 2 is not applicable in respect of Interlocutory Applications and examination of deponent arises only in cases where third party affidavits are filed. It is also stated that the cross-examination of 2nd respondent/1st defendant at this stage is not permissible and that the 2nd respondent has got only share in the plaint schedule properties along with other respondents.