1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8300 OF 2009 Kisan Kashinath Pawar .. Petitioner versus Suganchand Zumberlal Sharma .. Respondent Mr.R.S.Alange for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th October 2009. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is the defendant in a suit filed by the respondent. In a suit for injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with the work of repairs to the suit premises, an application for temporary injunction was made by the respondent. The respondent filed an affidavit in support of the said application. The petitioner made an application relying upon Rule 2 of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking permission to cross-examine the respondent on the basis of the said affidavit. He sought permission to cross-examine the witnesses, if any, whose affidavits are filed by the respondent in support of application for temporary injunction. He placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Abbot Laboratories (India) Ltd Vs. J.D.Jamdar & Anr [1995 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal 122]. He submitted that permission to cross-examine is necessary as the final relief which is sought in the plaint has been prayed for by way of interim relief. 2. I have carefully considered the submissions. The application filed by the 2 respondent is one invoking Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the said Code. It is true that while deciding such applications for temporary injunction, the parties are entitled to file affidavits in support of their case. Considering the fact that such application is required to be decided on the basis of prima facie view taken by the Court, normally, a prayer for seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses who have filed affidavits is not accepted as the same will delay disposal of the application for temporary injunction. By the very nature of the reliefs sought in such applications, the same require expeditious disposal. In a case where ex-parte ad-interim relief is granted, Rule 3A of Order XXXIX of the said Code requires the Court to make an effort to dispose of the application within 30 days. The fact that interim injunction in terms of the final relief claimed in the suit is sought is no ground to grant permission to cross-examine the witnesses. 3. Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Abbot Laboratories (supra) will not help the petitioner as the issue decided by this Court arose relating to the power of the Court to decide a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices At, 1972 on the basis of the affidavits. 4. There is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the trial Court. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. It is obvious that all contentions on merits are expressly kept open. (A.S.OKA,J)