CHOTU KHAN Vs. ABDUL KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Additional Munsif No. 1, Jodhpur dated 13/11/1990 by which he has rejected the application of the plaintiff-petitioner moved under Order 19, Rule 2(1), C.P.C. for the cross-examination of the deponents of the affidavits filed by the defendant-non petitioner in support of his reply to the plaintiff petitioner's application moved under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C.

(2.) It had been contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned trial court has acted with material irregularity and illegality in exercise of its jurisdiction in rejecting the said application, the petitioner has a valuable right to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits for eliciting the truth. He further contended that the very fact that the non-petitioner has seriously opposed the said application indicates that the deponents of the affidavit could not have stood the cross-examination and the falsity if their affidavits would have been exposed. He lastly contended that it was not necessary to disclose the grounds or points for the cross examination. He relied upon Ram Swaroop v. Bholu Ram, 1989 (2) RLW 300 (D.B.).

(3.) In reply, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant-non-petitioner that it cannot be disputed that the court may order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponents but the provisions of Order 19, Rule 2(1), C.P.C. do not empower the court to pass such an order in each and every case, the discretion has been given to the trial court and it has to be exercised in a judicial manner and not arbitrarily or whimsically. He further contended that no valid reason or ground was disclosed by the petitioner in his said application and the application was moved for causing delay in the case. He lastly contended that the trial court has rightly exercised its discretion in this case, no jurisdictional error has been committed by it in rejecting the application and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order while exercising the powers under Section 115, C.P.C. He relied unon Manick Nandy v. Debdas Nandy and others, AIR 1986 SC 446, Pijush Kanti Gush v. Smt. Kinnori Mullick, AIR 1984 Calcutta 184 and In re Alu Bin Aifan, AIR 1983 A.P. 114.