THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 739 OF 2009 Date of Judgment: 15.11.2010 Between: Sri Lalitambica Constructions …Petitioner and Boddeti Bhavani ..Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NO. 739 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant. The defendant in OS No. 1585 of 2008 on the file of the III-Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is aggrieved by the order of the trial court dated 31.12.2008 in IA No. 695 of 2008 refusing to grant permission to the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine the plaintiff who was deponent in the affidavit filed in support of his application for interim injunction. This Court, by order dated 27.2.2009, stayed all further proceedings in the suit. Consequently the interim injunction granted in favour of plaintiff continues and the suit is not being proceeded with. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant states that the affidavit filed in support of the injunction petition by the plaintiff is based on incorrect facts and if an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff/deponent, as provided under Order 19, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is granted, the petitioner/defendant will be in a position to demonstrate that the plaintiff is not entitled to the interim injunction. Irrespective of the merits of the aforesaid contentions, in view of the fact that the suit is pending from 2008, issues are said to have already been framed, and the suit is ripe for trial, no purpose would be served by subjecting the plaintiff to cross-examination at two stages one at the stage of Order 19, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the other at the stage of trial in the suit. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to hear and decide the suit itself on merits after recording evidence of both sides. Needless to observe that the petitioner/defendant shall have due opportunity to cross- examine the plaintiff with respect to the entire subject matter of the suit and once the suit itself is disposed of, the interlocutory application automatically would not survive. In that view of the matter, the revision petition is dismissed with a direction to the Court below to complete the trial of the suit and decide the suit itself preferably before 31st March, 2011. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 15.11.2010 KR