THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.646 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.13 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam against the first respondent herein, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,100/-with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization and for injunction restraining the defendant from resisting the plaintiff while taking over the possession of the property from the defendant as per the terms and conditions of the license deed, and the same is pending. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.83 of 2009 in I.A.No.43 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2009 under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC seeking to order the deponent in I.A.No.43 of 2009, which was filed to implead the petitioner therein as a party to the proceedings, to appear before the Court for the purpose of cross-examination. Through the Order, dated 04.02.2009, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court holding that the deponent in I.A.No.43 of 2009 is a third party to the suit and that the third party, who is a proposed party, cannot be summoned unless that petition is allowed and added as a party to the suit and therefore, the petition is not maintainable. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the second respondent herein, who filed I.A.No.43 of 2009, cannot be made as a party to the suit under Clauses 7,8, and 9 of License Deed, dated 11.07.2005. They read as under: 7. In case licensee commits default in payment of license fees for a total period of 3 months or fails to comply with the other terms and conditions of this deed, the licensor is entitled to cancel this agreement without any further notice and re-enter the said premises, and the licensee consents the licensor to vacate without the intervention of Court. 8. Though the questions of transfer of license does not arise, still it is once again made clear by way of abundant caution that the licensee is not entitled to transfer the license to any third party or induct new partners in to the partnership for carrying on business in the said premises. 9. It is mutually agreed that the licensor is always deemed to be in possession of the said premises as per the deed and the licensee has no right to raise any objection regarding the same or interfere with the possession of the licensor in regard to the said premises. He contended that under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC, the petitioner is entitled to cross-examine the deponent in I.A.No.43 of 2009. He further contended that the trial Court ought to have dismissed the I.A. without assigning any reasons. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that this application is filed only to prolong the litigation. 5. Now, the point for consideration is whether the trial Court has committed error in the order impugned. 6. Order XIX Rule 2 CPC reads as under: “Power to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination--(1) Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross- examination of the deponent. 7. The above extracted provision clearly postulates the power of Court to order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent at the instance of either party upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit. Therefore, whether the implead petition is allowed or not, the Court has the power to order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent as it is a valuable right conferred on the parties. Hence, it is clear that the trial Court has committed an error in passing the impugned order without appreciating the provisions of law in proper perspective. The first defendant is a company, governed by the terms and conditions of the License Deed and if any violation is occurred, it is always open to the licensor to take necessary steps in accordance with law., 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.83 of 2009 stands allowed. Consequently, the trial Court is directed to complete the process of cross-examination of the deponent in I.A.No.43 of 2009 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is further directed to dispose of I.A.No.43 of 2009 within three weeks from the date of completion of the said cross-examination. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 29.01.2010 Note: Issue CC forthwith (Bo) sj