SATYANARAYAN Vs. NAND KISHORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of the District Judge, Indore dated 19-4-1989 on interim applications only, in C.S. No. 3 of 1989, the applicant has filed this revision petition.

(2.) It is a common ground that the applicant has filed an application under Order 39, Rules I & 2 C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction. During the pendency of that application, the applicant also filed two applications under Order 19, Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. seeking permission to cross-examine the persons who had sworn affidavits on behalf of the non-applicants. The learned lower court, vide its order held that no case is made out for permitting the applicant to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the plaintiff has filed this revision petition.

(3.) According to Shri Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the applicant, the order rejecting the applications I.A. Nos. 10 & 11 seeking permission to cross-examine the persons who had sworn the affidavits against the plaintiff is erroneous as the court while passing the order has not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and has also not passed a speaking order.