SUDHIR KUMAR Vs. ASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT point which is to be decided in this revision is "when the private parties have filed affidavits for decision of the interlocutory application, whether any of those parties is entitled to get witness of rival party for cross -examination in context with affidavit filed by him."

(2.) SHRI A.K. Sethi, appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in matter of Gulab Chand Jain and ors. v. Khushalchand and ors. reported in 1992 JLJ 57 wherein this Court has held -

(3.) RULE 1 O. 39 provides - "Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise - (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to (defrauding) his creditors, or (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit), the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property (or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit) as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders." Rule 2 O. 39 provides: (1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract of injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping in account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit." In Mithailal Gupta v. Inland Auto Finance (supra) it has been held that - "Where the adverse party desires production of the deponent for cross -examination, the Court should ordinarily order attendance of the deponent for cross -examination."