B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant revision has been filed against the impugned, order dated 22.9.2001, by which the application of the petitioner under Order 10 Rule 2 read with Order 19 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short,"the Code") has been rejected.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that non- petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit against the petitioner-defendant for fixing the standard rent of the suit premises with the averments that petitioner- defendant is his tenant on monthly rent of Rs. 607- in a shop of 400 square feet area. An application under Section 7 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter called"the Act, 1950") for fixing the provisional rent was also filed and for that purpose, the non- petitioner/plaintiff produced some affidavits. Petitioner filed the aforesaid application for permission of cross-examining the deponents thereof, which has been rejected vide impugned order on-the ground that such proceedings are summary in nature and cross-examination cannot be permitted. Hence this revision. Mr. J.R. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that as the suit may be decided at a very belated stage and the provisional rent fixed by the Court may be unreasonable, the rent so fixed may prejudice the case of petitioner, therefore, the application should not have been dismissed and petitioner ought to have been accorded the permission to cross- examine the deponent of the affidavits and, thus, the order impugned is liable to be set- aside.
(3.) ON the contrary, Mr. Kalla, learned counsel for respondent, has opposed the application on the ground that the proceedings to determine the provisional rent are summary in nature, therefore, the application has been rightly rejected as provisions of Order 19 are not attracted in a case deciding such an application and this Court should not give any indulgence in this regard.;