K.P. Singh J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been directed against the order of the Civil Judge, Jaunpur, dated 21 -5 -1982 in Misc. Case No. 72 of 1980 Mst. Dilraji v. Ram Autar.
(2.) THE applicants' prayer for cross -examining the Plaintiff opposite party has been refused by the learned Civil Judge through the impugned order. The learned Civil Judge has expressed himself as below: Cross -examination everything else not -with -standing has its roots in Anglo -Saxon Jurisprudence....The brown man's concept of English law at times has faded to bring on disaster and chaos reducing rule of law to an absurdity. The Indian Parliament perhaps became wise....and brought about legislative amendments....efficacy and expediency. The authority cited evokes (all my respect but in my humble and respectful opinion does not cover the facts of the case. The permission asked for is refused and the matter under Order 33 Code of Civil Procedure shall be decided on affidavits alone." The learned Counsel for the applicant has contended before me that the lower court has failed to notice relevant law contained in Order 33 Rules 6 and 7 Code of Civil Procedure and has acted illegally in observing that the application of the Plaintiff shall be decided on affidavits alone.
(3.) THE learned Counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the application moved by the Defendant applicant was only with a view to delay the proceedings and it was with a malafide Intention, hence the same was rightly rejected by the subordinate court. He has tried to support the impugned judgment. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Plaintiff opposite party is not a real person behind the litigation and unless the Defendant applicant gets an opportunity to cross -examine, the real facts cannot come before the Court and the question would be decided arbitrarily.;