IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH (30TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2411 of 2010 Between: Asif Imran … Petitioner And: Mohd. Ismail Moosa & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2411 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 30.11.2009 in IA No.20 of 2008 in IA No.1567 of 2007 in OS No.473 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, wherein the said application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC for summoning the petitioner herein for cross- examination of his affidavit filed in IA No.1567 of 2007, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule properties and separate possession of 1/8th share out of items 1 and 2 and 1/9th share out of items 3 and 4 and for mesne profits. The defendants 1 to 4 filed written statement, contesting the suit. The petitioner also filed IA No.1567 of 2007 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC seeking injunction not to alienate the schedule properties. The respondents 1 to 4 herein filed IA No.20 of 2008 seeking to summon the plaintiff for cross-examination in respect of the affidavit filed by him in IA No.1567 of 2007. According to the respondents 1 to 4 herein, the petitioner herein concealed the information about the existence of three elder sisters and also maternal uncle. They also contended that the plaintiff is not in joint possession and the Court fee paid is incorrect. They further contended that the plaintiff has not filed certified copy of the document in respect of any of the items of the plaint schedule properties to show prima-facie case. The petitioner herein filed counter opposing the application. The trial Court allowed the application, observing that when a party has given affidavit, the other party assailing the same shall be given opportunity for cross-examination of the deponent. Assailing the same, the present revision is filed by the plaintiff. 4 . It is to be seen that the suit is one for partition. The defendants filed their detailed written statement. Necessary issues are said to have been proposed. The scope of IA No.1567 of 2007 for interim injunction seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property is very much limited. The only point that arises for consideration in the said IA No.1567 of 2007 is whether temporary injunction as prayed for can be granted so as to preserve the property till the disposal of the suit and avoid creation of any third party rights in the subject matter of the suit so that there would not be any legal complications at a later stage. The various aspects of which the defendants sought to cross- examine the plaintiff in the enquiry in IA No.1567 of 2007 are not germane for disposal of the said IA and those aspects would arise for consideration during the course of trial of the suit. The defendants would certainly have an opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff during the course of trial on the aspects, including those mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of IA No.20 of 2008. No doubt Order XIX Rule 2 CPC enables the Court to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination when the evidence is sought to be given by way of an affidavit. The power conferred on the Court under XIX Rule 2 CPC is discretionary and the same has to be exercised in judicious way when such a cross- examination of the deponent is warranted. In the present case, having regard to the fact that the scope of the application in IA No.1567 of 2007 is very narrow and the aspects of which the defendants sought to cross-examine the plaintiff have no bearing over the consideration of the said application. The cross- examination of the plaintiff at the interlocutory stage in such application even before the trial is taken up is certainly not warranted. In fact Order XIX Rule 2 CPC contemplates such cross-examination of the deponent when the evidence is sought to be given by way of affidavit. In the present case, the affidavit is given by the plaintiff himself not as evidence, but in support of his petition for interim injunction. The interim order allowing the application and permitting the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff at this stage is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. It is however open to the defendants to cross-examine the plaintiff on the aspects relevant to the suit during the course of trial. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 30.03.2011 bss