1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.801 OF 2010 Dinanath Shivram Bagkar ...Petitioner vs. Swati Shekhar Talim & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 5, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the original defendant. An application for temporary injunction at Exh.-5 is pending before the trial Court. The respondents-plaintiffs produced certain affidavits of certain witnesses in support of their case. An application was made by the petitioner seeking permission to cross examine the witnesses whose affidavits were tendered on record by the respondents. By the impugned order, said application has been rejected. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the application at Exh.5 is to be decided on the basis of the affidavits, rule 2 of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (hereinafter referred to as the said Code) will apply. He submitted that the trial Court has erroneously observed that the question of possession is not relevant. He pointed out that while deciding the application even a finding has been recorded no inconsistent stand has been taken by the respondents. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. It is true that the application at Exh.5 will be decided on the 2 basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. An application for temporary injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order XXXIX of the said Code is required to be decided expeditiously. Though rule 2 of Order XIX of the said Code will apply to such affidavits, normally the Court will not exercise power to grant permission to rival parties to cross the witnesses whose affidavits are filed on record for the purposes of hearing of such interim application. It is only in very exceptional cases such permission can be granted. 4 Prima facie consideration of the affidavits and documents on record will have to be made by the Court at the time of hearing of an application for temporary injunction as the findings recorded in order passed on such application are always tentative. Therefore, the learned trial Judge was right to the extent that the permission to cross examine the witnesses could not have been granted to the petitioner. There is some justification for the grievance made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as regards the observations made in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order. It is obvious that the said observations are made for the purpose of considering the prayer for seeking permission to cross examine the witnesses. It is made clear that while deciding the application at Exh.-5, the trial Court will not be influenced by the said observations. 5 Subject to what is observed above, no interference is called for. Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE