Tadepalli Parusuram vs Gopu Krishna Kumar and Others

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.—The present petition is filed by the petitioner-Ist defendant in O.S. No. 59/95 which is pending on the file of the First Addl. Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.

It appears from the record that the 1st respondent herein was the plaintiff. He had filed the above referred suit against the defendants for permanent injunction. In the said suit, he had also filed an interim application bearing LA. No. 746/95 with a prayer to grant ad-interim injunction. The learned Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada granted interim injunction order on the said application. Thereupon the petitioner herein i.e., D-l filed LA. No. 4228/95 with a request to issue a mandatory injunction against the plaintiff and also for vacating the interim order. Thereupon the petitioner-lst defendant also filed one more LA. No. 6010/95 to summon the plaintiff for cross-examination. The prayer of the 1st defendant appears to have been neither granted nor rejected, but the petitioner-1st defendant was directed to proceed with the hearing of the original injunction petition. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner-lst defendant has approached this Court in revision on the grounds mentioned in the revision.

The learned Counsel Mr. V.S.R. Anjaneyulu appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein submitted at the Bar that when one party files an affidavit in support of his claim, the other party can insist upon cross-examining the said party. In the present case, when I.A. No. 6010/95 was filed by the petitioner-lst defendant the learned Subordinate Judge ought to have passed an appropriate order on the said application. But instead of doing so, he insisted upon the petitioner-lst defendant to go on with the main injunction application. Thereby valuable right of the petitioner-lst defendant in cross-examining the plaintiff is hereby lost. The petitioner-lst defendant has come before this Court with a specific averment that the plaintiff has filed a false affidavit in support of his interim injunction application. If the truth is to be brought on record, the plaintiff must be subjected to the cross-examination.

Considering the above facts and circumstances, I direct the learned Subordinate Judge to give an opportunity to the first defendant to cross- examine the plaintiff.

With these directions, the C.R.P. stands disposed of.