THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.507 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.01.2010 passed in I.A.No.46 of 2009 in O.S.No.220 of 2007 by the learned VI Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.220 of 2007 for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaint schedule property and also restraining the 3rd defendant not to register the sale deeds by defendants 1 and 2. In the said suit, the petitioner herein, i.e., defendant No.2, filed I.A.No.46 of 2009 under Order XIX Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to permit him to cross- examine the first respondent/plaintiff, who is the deponent in I.A.No.1706 of 2009 filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of interim injunction against defendants 1 and 2 and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property including any construction in the said property. The trial Court, after consideration of the material on record, dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as there is serious controversy with regard to the nature, possession, right and title of the property in question, it is essential to cross- examine the first respondent. He has drawn the attention of this Court by relying upon the decisions of this Court in C. SRINIVASA RAO v K. MANOHAR RAO[1] and GARAPATI CHAMUNDESWARI @ CHALASANI CHAMUNDESWARI v. MALLAMPATI AMAR KUMAR[2]. 5. 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. (2) such attendance shall be in Court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in Court or the Court otherwise directs. The above said provision clearly postulates that only upon an application, evidence may be given through affidavit, the Court may order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent, at the instance of either party. In the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court held as under: “Order XIX Rule 2 CPC is applicable only in the case of affidavits filed by an order of the Court passed under Order XIX Rule 1 CPC and that rule may not have any application to the affidavits filed under the statutory permission provided under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC”. The above cited judgments are not helpful to the case of the petitioner. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.A. vide order impugned. Be that it may, since the suit is of the year 2007 and the first respondent is aged 73 years, without going into the merits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the revision with the direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court shall proceed with the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this revision petition. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:11.02.2010. Note: Issue CC by one week. (Bo) sj [1] 1981 APLJ-1-414 [2] 2009-LAP-0-82