1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.96/2006. M/s.Dhanna Lal Hardev Kumar. VERSUS Civil Judge (Lower Div.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.96/2006. M/s.Dhanna Lal Hardev Kumar. VERSUS Civil Judge (Lower Div.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr. 12.03.2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.R.P.Garg, for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Sharma on behalf of Mr.Sudesh Bansal, for the respondent. ***** The matter comes up on the application submitted by the respondent for vacation of the ex-parte interim order under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that since the submissions on the application as well as the writ petition and the stay application are identical, therefore, the writ petition itself may be heard on merits. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the learned trial court dated 13.12.2005 by which the application submitted by the defendant-petitioner-tenant under Order 19 Rule 13 C.P.C. has been rejected by the learned trial court. In substance, the objection raised in the said application by the petitioner was with regard to the verification made by the witness wherein specific reference has not been made as to which paragraph 2 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.96/2006. M/s.Dhanna Lal Hardev Kumar. VERSUS Civil Judge (Lower Div.) West, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Anr. has been attested on the personal knowledge and as to which paragraph has been attested on the basis of belief. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 has held that in view of the fact that opposite party, the petitioner herein, has the right to cross examine the witness on the basis of the contents of the affidavit, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner even if the verification is not strictly in accordance with the provisions of Order 19 C.P.C. In the facts and circumstances of the case looking to the fact that after the amendment brought in the year 2002, the parties are permitted to lead evidence by means of the affidavit and the opposite party has the right to cross examine the witness, no prejudice would be caused to the opposite party if the verification is not strictly in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The application filed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India submitted for vacation of interim order dated 09.01.2006 is allowed. The writ petition as well as the stay application accordingly stand dismissed. The interim order staying the proceedings is vacated. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.