1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9478 OF 2009 Mrs. Meena Gupta. .. Petitioner Vs M/s. Dawn & Company Private Limited & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Rajesh Patil for the Petitioner. -- CORAM : A.S. OKA, J DATE : 29TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner who is the original Plaintiff. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is to an order passed by the trial Court by which an application at Exhibit -45 made by the Petitioner has been rejected. The suit is at the stage of hearing of the application for temporary injunction. There is an ad-interim relief granted in favour of the Petitioner. The contesting Defendant filed an affidavit of one B.B. Pathak for the purposes of hearing of the application for temporary injunction. An application was made by the Petitioner praying that the said Shri Pathak be summoned for cross- examination. The said application has been rejected. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made a grievance that the finding of the trial Court that the Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( hereinafter referred to as “the said 2 Code”) cannot apply is erroneous. He relied upon the decision of a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ram Swaroop & Others v. Bholu Ram, [AIR 1991 Rajasthan 56] in support of his submissions. He, therefore, submitted that the trial Court has committed an error. He submitted that there is material on record to show that the version of the said witness in the affidavit is false. 3. I have carefully considered the submissions. There is a merit in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the Rules 1 and 2 of Order XIX of the said Code will apply to the affidavits filed for the purposes of hearing of the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the said Code. 4. However, while deciding such application, existence of prima facie case is required to be considered and the Court can record only tentative findings. It is the discretion of the Court to permit cross- examination of the witness who has filed affidavits for the purposes of hearing of such application. Rule 3A of Order XXXIX of the said Code provides that where an ex-parte injunction is granted, the court has to make an endeavour to decide the application for temporary injunction within a period of 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted. If the Courts are to permit cross-examination of the witnesses who have filed affidavits for the purposes of hearing of interim applications, the hearing of such applications will be inordinarily delayed thereby defeating the legislative intent. The Petitioner can always argue at the time of hearing of 3 the application that the material on record indicates that the version of the witness on oath may not be correct. It is only in rare and exceptional cases that the Court can exercise power of permitting cross-examination of the witness at the stage of hearing of the application for temporary injunction. 5. Though the reasons recorded by the trial Court may not be happily worded, there is no reason to interfere with the final order passed by the trial Court of rejecting the prayer. No interference is called for. The Writ Petition is rejected. JUDGE ash