Source: https://advocatemmmohan.com/2016/07/29/order-19-rule-2-of-cpc-to-direct-the-1st-respondent1st-defendant-to-appear-before-the-court-to-cross-examine-not-maintainable-order-xix-rule-2-cpc-which-reads-as-under-power-to-order-at/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 04:51:33+00:00

Document:
Order 19 Rule 2 of CPC to direct the 1st respondent/1st defendant to appear before the court to cross-examine – not maintainable – Order XIX Rule 2 CPC, which reads as under: Power to order attendance of deponent for cross-examination: (1) Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. (2) Such attendance shall be in Court, unless the deponent is exempted from personal appearance in Court or the Court otherwise directs.=The Court below by relying on the judgment reported in Shetty Chandra Shekar and others v. Neeti Ramulu and others (supra) dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the deponents of third party affidavits filed in support of plaintiff or defendant can be called for cross-examination but not the affidavit filed by either the plaintiff or the defendant to the proceedings. The Court below also relied on the judgment reported in the case of Smt. Sudha and another v. Manmohan and others , wherein it is held that the request for cross examination of the defendant cannot be allowed if such request could be to protract and delay the proceedings under the main suit. The Court below has rightly relied on the judgment in Shetty Chandra Shekers case and came to the conclusion that the application under Order XIX Rule 2 CPC is not maintainable in respect of the affidavits filed by parties to proceedings and it will apply to the affidavits filed by third parties. In view of above facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.
referred to as arrayed in the interlocutory application.
1st defendant is very much necessary. Hence, the petition.
properties along with other respondents.
on behalf of the respondents.
Ravi Kiran v. Bonda Rama Lakshmi and others , Nadella Estates Pvt.
Shekar and others v. Neeti Ramulu and others and Ali Bin Aifan v.
for cross-examination of the deponent.
by the respondents-defendants under Order XIX, Rule 2 C.P.C.
defendants that they intended to summon petitioner-plaintiff No.
scope of Order XIX Rule 2 C.P.C.
Evidence Act, which defines evidence.
Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd., v. Jindal Exports Limited .
the affidavits filed by third parties.
reason to interfere with the order of the Court below.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Previous Post Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure = suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the respondents.for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localize the survey numbers 52, 53 and 54 on land along with sub- divisions therein as shown in the plaint plan, and also to localize the extent of Acs.3.50 cents in Sy. No.52/1-B1 on land, with the assistance of District Surveyor and total station instrument, and with the help of municipal survey records and other documents produced by them into the Court and the documents produced by the defendants, and also to arrange for taking necessary photographs and videos.= Under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the main purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner is to elucidate any matter in dispute. It does not appear from the pleadings of the parties that the identity of the property is in dispute and therefore the question of localizing the property does not arise. It is therefore wholly unnecessary for the petitioner to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Being the plaintiff, the burden is on him to prove his case by producing required evidence and he cannot seek to rely upon the help of an Advocate Commissioner for this purpose. Unless he has material in his possession to show that he has title over the suit schedule property, he should not have filed the suit at all. If, for any reason, the petitioner wants to establish the identity of the property with reference to the boundaries mentioned in the documents on ground, he is always entitled to seek survey of the property by approaching the survey officials on his own, and produce the survey reports and examine the surveyor concerned as his witness. Instead of following this procedure, the petitioner appeared to have devised a shortcut method of filing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. This, in my opinion, surely is not the purpose for which the Advocate Commissioner is appointed. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower Court and the civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
Next Post Order XXIII Rule 1 applies to the interlocutory applications also.= Order XXIII Rule 1 applies to suit, but I feel that the principle underlying the same is based on public policy, as such, I do not see any reason for not applying the said principle to the interlocutory applications also. = petitioner filed petition under Order 1 Rule 10 and Section 151 CPC to implead him as 7th respondent/7th defendant in the place of 1st respondent/1st defendant to contest the proceedings as a legatee under the Will.= The 1st defendant died on 05.11.2011 due to old age and on her death, the Will dated 29.09.2010 came into operation and he became the legatee of the will and became absolute owner of his mother estate i.e., half share of the suit schedule property. The 1st respondent/plaintiff knowing fully well, have filed a memo stating that she is only legal heir and already succeeded to the half share of his mother. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest against the property and sought to implead him as 7th respondent/7th defendant to contest the proceedings as a legatee.= But at the same, in the instant case, petitioner cannot maintain the present application for the same cause of action after withdrawal of I.A.No.1 of 2012 filed by him, that too, without obtaining permission to institute the present application. Though the present application is not hit by the principles of res judicata, but whoever waives, abandons or disclaims a right will forego the same. In order to prevent a litigant from abusing the process of the court by instituting suits again and again on the same cause of action without any good reason, the Code insists that he should obtain the permission of the Court to file a fresh suit after establishing either of the two grounds mentioned in Rule 1(3) of the Order XXIII. The principle underlying the above rule is founded on public policy as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P.Gwalior (supra). Though the above said decision was rendered in the context of suit proceedings, but the said principle was made applicable to writ proceedings also, since the same is founded on public policy. Though Order XXIII Rule 1 applies to suit, but I feel that the principle underlying the same is based on public policy, as such, I do not see any reason for not applying the said principle to the interlocutory applications also. In the instant case, the trial Court was right in holding that a fresh interlocutory application is not maintainable before it, in respect of the same subject matter since the earlier interlocutory application had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh application.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.