THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.985 OF 2010 DATED: 23-02-2011 Between: Ashwini Chemical Works, Hyderabad. .... PETITIONER And Aswini Homeo Pharmacy, Moosapet, Ranga Reddy District & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.11.2009, in I.A.No.3044 of 2009 in I.A.No.2209 of 2009 in I.A.No.1577 of 2009 in O.S.No.256 of 2009 on the file of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC, seeking summons to the defendant, who gave third party affidavit in support of the petition filed under Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction. He also filed I.A.No.1577 of 2009 for temporary injunction and the trial Court granted interim injunction restraining the petitioner from manufacturing and selling ‘Ashwini’ detergent cake and powder on 23.04.2009. Alleging violation of the said order of interim injunction, respondent herein filed I.A.No.2209 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC praying the Court to detain the petitioner in civil prison for disobedience of the order of injunction. In support of his plea, respondent filed certain documents and also third party affidavits. Petitioner thereafter filed I.A.No.3044 of 2009 seeking issuance of summons to those persons, who furnished the third party affidavits to appear before the Court to enable the petitioner to cross-examine them. 4. Respondent seeks detention of the petitioner in civil prison for the alleged disobedience of the order of interim injunction passed by the Court. Petitioner categorically denies that he disobeyed the order of the Court in any manner. Therefore, the matter is to be decided after due enquiry as to whether or not the petitioner violated the order of injunction granted by the trial Court. When the respondent sought to establish his claim and prove the allegation that the petitioner did in fact violate the order of the Court by producing certain third party affidavits, the request of the petitioner to summon those persons to enable him to cross-examine them in respect of the contents of the said affidavit is only natural. Petitioner is perfectly justified in making such a request and justice also demands that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to cross-examine the persons who furnished third party affidavits so that the version put forward by the respondent through the third party affidavits would stand the scrutiny of the Court before any order is passed on the petition filed by the respondent for detaining the petitioner in civil prison. In that view of the matter, it is considered that the impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner in I.A.No.3044 of 2009, is not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. Consequently, the said petition-I.A.No.3044 of 2009 stands allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to cross-examine the persons, who furnished third party affidavits on behalf of the respondent. 5. Accordingly, Civil Revision petition is allowed. The trial Court shall however dispose of the said application filed by the respondent at an early date, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd February, 2011. Tsy