Narayan Shukla, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shiv Nath Tilhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for opposite party No. 1.
(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 17.9.2005 passed by the Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj (SD), Lucknow, in P.A. Case No. 82 of 2004, Gulamnabi and others v. Shyam Lal Kashyap, whereby the petitioner's application to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the respondents No. 2 and 3 has been rejected on the ground that in the present case there is no dispute between the landlord and tenants. That is why it is not necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examination to the respondents No. 2 and 3.
(3.) The petitioner has filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 before the Civil Judge (SD), Mohan Lal Ganj, Lucknow, which is numbered as P.A. Case No. 82 of 2004, Gulamnabi and another v. Shyam Lal Kashyap, for permanent injunction and in this suit the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 filed their written statement and asserted that the present petitioner had not been their tenant and had made the deposition to the above effect to the Court. The copies of the written statement and depositions of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 have been brought on record as Annexures 3 and 3-A to the petition. In pursuance of the plea taken by the respondents No. 2 and 3 in their written statement filed in the earlier case the petitioner moved an application in the present case under Order XIX, Rule 2 read with Section 151, CPC for being permitted to cross-examine to respondents No. 2 and 3 to test the veracity of the affidavits of opposite parties. The Prescribed Authority (Civil Judge SD, Mohan Lai Ganj) through this order dated 17.9.2005 has rejected the petitioners application to cross-examine the respondents No. 2 and 3.;