IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.573 OF 2009 Between: Thoutam Laxminarayana .....PETITIONER AND Gaddam Bhoomaiah and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.573 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 24.12.2005, in I.A.No.1231 of 2008 in I.A.No.968 of 2008 in O.S.No.636 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under XIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, “C.P.C.”), to summon respondent No.5, who filed his verified counter in I.A.No.968 of 2008, on behalf of all the respondents, for the purpose of cross-examination, was dismissed on the ground that respondent No.5 has not filed any counter affidavit, so as to summon him as witness. 2. Heard. 3. The suit is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for perpetual injunction. In the said suit, I.A.No.968 of 2008 is filed for temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. In the said I.A., the present petition is purported to have been filed, under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C., to summon respondent No.5. 4. Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. reads thus: “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.” 5. As seen from the record, respondent No.5 filed only verified counter in I.A.No.968 of 2008. It is not an affidavit by way of evidence under Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C., so as to summon respondent No.5 for cross-examination. The term “affidavit” is not defined in C.P.C. General Clauses Act, 1897, however, defines “affidavit” thus: “Affidavit shall include affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing;” It is a sworn statement made especially under oath or on affirmation before an authorized person. Every affidavit should be drawn up in the first person and should contain only facts. The verified counter filed by respondent No.5 does not come within the ambit and scope of affidavit. Therefore, Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C. has no application to the present facts of the case. Hence, the trial Court rightly dismissed the petition and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 10, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.573 OF 2009 February 10, 2011