ABDUL NISHAR Vs. SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Osian dated 4.5.1998 by which he refused the petitioner plaintiff to cross -examine witnesses of defendants on their affidavits in Civil Misc. Case No. 21 /97 which was registered on an application under Order 39, Rule 2 C.P.C.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial court should have allowed the petitioner to cross -examine two witnesses under Order 19 C.P.C. as the affidavits of Trilok Chand and Sohan Dan stated wrong facts. He submitted that the trial court refused cross examination on flimsy grounds.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner carried me through the record which was summoned in order to appreciate that the impugned order of the learned trial Judge suffered from infirmity. My view is that in case such a cross -examination is allowed in each and every case the very purpose of early disposal of such applications would be frustrated. I am of the view that a petitioner has to submit very cogent reasons as to why does he want to cross examine the witnesses. The application of the petitioner dated 20.12.1998 in which he prayed for cross -examination of the two witnesses is a general type of application and does not mention the specific points on which the petitioner wanted to cross examine witnesses. It has been stated in Para No. 6 of the application that the affidavits of Trilok Chand and Sohan Dan are false and it was in the interest of justice that they may be allowed to be cross -examined on their affidavits. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the application was presented in order to test veracity of the witnesses.