CRP 169/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The defendant in Title Suit No.76/2009, who is also the opposite party in Misc(J ) Case No.60/2009, registered on the basis of an application filed under Order 3 9 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC by the respondent, who is the plaintiff in the said suit, by present petition has challenged the order dated 3 May 2010, whereby and where-u nder the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat has rejected the application filed by the present petitioner under Order 19 Rule 2 of the CPC for directing appearance of the deponent of the affidavit filed in the injunction petition for cross-examina tion, alleging that there were certain false statements made in para 2 & 3 of th e said injunction petition filed. I have heard Mr CK Sarma Baruah, learned senior counsel for the petition er, so also Mr BC Das, learned senior counsel for the respondent. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, referring to provision of Ord er 19 Rule 2 of CPC as well as the provision of Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC has s ubmitted that since the application for temporary injunction can be decided by t he Court on affidavits or otherwise, it is not that the injunction matter has to be decided on the affidavits only. It has also been submitted that since the ap plicant of injunction application has made certain false statements in paragraph s 2 & 3 thereof, the deponent has to appear before the learned Court below for c ross-examination, as those matters may be taken into consideration by the learne d Court below at the time of deciding the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. Learned senior counsel, during the course of argument, however, has subm itted that while the further proceeding in Misc(J) Case No.60/2009 was stayed by this Court by the interim order dated 21 May 2010, the proceeding in the main s uit proceeded and next date has been fixed for cross-examination of plaintiff’s witnesses, who had filed evidence-on-affidavits, including the present responden t. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that present petition be disposed of with a direction to the learned Court below to consider and decide the applic ation filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, after completion of cross-examinat ion of the present respondent. Learned senior counsel, referring to impugned ord er has also submitted that while dealing with the application filed by the prese nt petitioner under Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC, the learned Munsiff has recorded a finding that there is no suppression of facts or false statements which, accordi ng to learned senior counsel, if allowed to remain, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submit ted that normally the Court is required to decide the application filed under Or der 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. A ccording to learned senior counsel, keeping in view the objective of granting in junction, such proceeding has to be decided in a summary manner. It has also bee n submitted that in the case at hand, the respondent in the application for gran t of injunction has made certain statements, which if are not correct, the prese nt petitioner/opposite party, in the said proceeding, could have file affidavits controverting such statements and produce the necessary proof, which has not be en done by the respondent. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that keepi ng in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned Court below has not committed any illegality in refusing the prayer made by the present petitio ner under Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC. Learned senior counsel further submits that th e learned Munsiff has not recorded any finding that the petitioner has not suppr essed any material facts, or made any false statement so as to cause prejudice t o the present petitioner, while deciding the application filed under Order 39 Ru le 1 & 2 of CPC. It has also been submitted that observation made in the impugne d order naturally relates to the application filed under Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC. Learned senor counsel further submits that the injunction petition, therefore, may directed to be decided expeditiously. It is not in dispute that while the further proceeding in Misc(J) Case N o.60/2009 has been stayed, because of the interim order dated 21 May 2010 passed by this Court in the present proceeding, the proceeding in TS No.76/2009 procee ded and the evidence-on-affidavits of three witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff have been filed and the next date has been fixed for cross-examination of the w itnesses of the plaintiff by the present petitioner, who is the defendant in the said suit. The issue involved in the present suit is whether the present respon dent be directed to appear for cross-examination by the present petitioner in th e matter of consideration of the payer for injunction made under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2, which has been registered as Misc(J) Case No.60/2009. Since in the main su it the date has been fixed for cross-examination of the witnesses, including the present respondent, I am of the view that the question involved in the present revision petition need not be gone into, as the injunction petition can be decid ed simultaneously on the next date fixed for cross-examination of the plaintiff’ s witnesses, after the cross-examination of the respondent is over. It also appears from the impugned order that some observation has been m ade while passing the said order in rejecting the application filed by the prese nt petitioner under Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC. Such observation may cause prejudice to the present petitioner in the matter of granting or refusing the prayer for injunction as made by the present respondent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC. That being the position, the present petition is disposed of with a dire ction to the learned Court below to decide the application for injunction immedi ately after the cross-examination of PW1 in the suit, i.e. the respondent, is ov er, for which a date has already been fixed. The present petitioner shall not se ek any adjournment for cross-examination of the said witness.. In the event any adjournment is sought at the instance of the present petitioner for cross-examin ation of PW1 in the suit, the learned Court below shall proceed to decide the in junction petition on the basis of the affidavits filed. The observations made in the impugned order shall definitely not be taken into consideration by the lear ned Munsiff, while deciding the injunction application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.