Mahendra Dayal, J. - (1.) THIS civil revision under section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow in Regular Suit No. 7 of 2007, whereby the learned court has allowed the application No. C -107 moved by the opposite parties for recall of the revisionist for further cross -examination.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the revisionist filed a suit for permanent injunction in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow against the opposite parties for restraining them from telecasting the TV serial "Neem Ka Ped". The case of the revisionist was that he had written a story title "Neem Ka Darakht" which was adopted by the opposite parties for making it into a TV serial after seeking his permission. However, the first 13 episodes were telecasted with the credit of story writing but from episode 14 the plaintiff was given a credit as additional story writer. The opposite parties, however, did not give any credit as a story writer to the revisionist in respect of subsequent episodes. The revisionist also prayed for temporary injunction under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC upon which an order dated 13.03.2007 was passed restraining the opposite parties from telecasting further episodes of TV serial. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid restraint order, a civil revision No. 45 of 2007 was filed. In the said revision, the injunction order was vacated and the revision was disposed of on 25th July, 2007 with certain directions and the trial court was directed to decide the application for interim injunction within a time frame. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, learned trial court by the order dated 07.09.2007 allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction and again restrained the opposite parties. Being dissatisfied with the final order passed on the application, the opposite party No. 1 filed FAFO No. 1033 of 2007 before this Court which was disposed of on 25.01.2008 and the order dated 07.09.2007 was set aside. However, the trial court was directed to decide the original suit within a period of six months. It was also directed that the parties shall co -operate before the court below and would not seek any unnecessary adjournment. After the disposal of the aforesaid first appeal from order on 25.01.2008, the parties exchanged their pleadings and issues were framed and the parties were called upon to lead their evidence. The revisionist being the plaintiff in original suit, examined himself as PW -1 but his cross -examination could not be completed even after a gap of four years and consequently the court closed further cross -examination vide order dated 10.04.2012. Since the examination -in -chief was to be conducted by way of filing affidavit, the revisionist filed affidavit of two witnesses, namely, Amin and S.S. Grewal who were cross -examined and with that the evidence of revisionist was concluded. The case was thereafter listed for evidence of the opposite parties. However, the opposite parties kept on seeking time for evidence, but did not file any affidavit. It so happened that on 25.05.2013 i.e. after a gap of one year, the opposite parties preferred an application for recall of the order dated 10.04.2012 and made a request that the revisionist be recalled again for further cross -examination. This application was strongly opposed by the revisionist and a detailed objection was filed, but the learned trial court by means of the impugned order, allowed the application merely on the ground that in the interest of justice further cross -examination of the revisionist was necessary.
(3.) I have heard Sri Jaspreet Singh, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist and Sri C.B. Pandey who has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and have also gone through the record.;