1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE BENCH AT AURNAGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1263/2010 Shashikant S/o Devidas Arvikar Age 57 years, Occ-Service R/o G-157, East of Janki Hotel, Shivaji Nagar Road, Opp. Maroti Temple Aurangabad .. PETITIONER [ORIG.DEFT.] VERSUS 1] Dr.Subhash S/o Pundlikrao Madrewar Age 45 years, Occ-Service R/o Latur. 2] Kishanrao S/o Raosaheb Lomte Age 40 years, Occ-Agril R/o Jawala, Tq. & Dist.Latur. 3] Sau. Megha W/o Devikumar Prayag Age 42 years, Occ-Household R/o Latur. .. RESPONDENTS [ORIG.PLAINTIFFS] ... Shri Amit S. Deshpande,Adv.for petitioner. Shri R.B.Deshmukh,Adv.for R.1 & 3. .... CORAM : A.A.SAYED,J. DATE : 29/11/2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1] Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally by consent. 2] The challenge in this Petition to the order dated 8/1/2010 passed by the II Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur. By that order, the petitioner/original defendant s application under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 for grant of permission to cross the original plaintiff/respondent at an interlocutory stage came to be rejected. 3] The temporary injunction application of the petitioner/orig. deft. is still pending in the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the allegations in the affidavit dated 7/7/2008 of the respondents/orig.defts., it is necessary to cross examine the said respondents before the injunction application is decided. The petitioner s desire to cross examine the respondent is on the aspect more particularly set out by him in para 4 of the affidavit dated 7/7/2008 which is reproduced hereunder : 4] That the suit land is in the name and in possession of defendant and it is learnt to the plaintiffs, from their well- wishers that the defendant is in hurry to create third party interest of any person in the suit land, or granting alienate 3 suit land to anybody. 4] I have perused the impugned order as well as Order XIX Rule 2 on which reliance is placed by the petitioner in support of his case of right of the cross examining the respondents even at the interlocutory stage. The powers under Order XIX Rule 2 are discretionary. At this stage of injunction application it is only a prima facie case which is required to be examined by the Court. Though at this stage also the Court has powers under Order XIX Rule 2 to allow the parties to cross examine the deponent, however, that power is to be exercised with caution and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the facts and circumstances were not such that persuaded the trial Court to exercise the discretion in favour of the petitioners to allow him to cross examine the respondents at the stage of the injunction application and I concur with the findings of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur that there is no necessity to call the deponent/respondent at this interlocutory stage for cross examination considering the facts and circumstances. 5] In the result, Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED,J.) umg/wp1263-10