SAKALABHAKTULA VYKUNTA RAO Vs. MADE APPALASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Muncif, Tekkali in I.A. No. 470/1976 in O.S. No. 75/1976.

(2.) The petitioners are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit O.S. No. 75/1976 which was filed for permanent injunction. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 369/1976 for the grant of temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The plaintiff filed some affidavits in support of the above mentioned I.A. One of the affidavits was given by the Village Karnam. The learned District Muncif granted interim injunction and issued notice to the respondents-defendants who are the petitioners herein. The petitioners after receiving the notice, filed a petition for vacating the interim injunction. The petitioners-defendants filed I.A. No. 470/1976 requesting the Court to summon the Village Karnam so that they would cross- examine him, as his affidavit contained certain false averments. This petition was opposed by the respondents-plaintiff. The learned District Muncif gave the following reasons for dismissing it :

(3.) Sri Ranganatham, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners are entitled to cross-examine the deponent with reference to the facts mentioned in the affidavit, as the petitioners felt that the affidavit contained false averments and as the Village Karnam brought into existence the adangals to fabricate the evidence in support of the plaintiffs case. He also contends that O. 19, Rr.1 and 2 C.P.C., give such power to the Court and hence the learned District Muncif committed jurisdictional error in not exercising the power given to it. He further contends that the reasons given by the learned District Muncif are contrary to law, as it is not necessary for the petitioners to show that the affidavits filed by the respondent-plaintiff are conflicting and that the Village Karnam may tamper the Village Accounts.