Short Note : 1. On notice being served, the defendants resisted the prayer for grant of a temporary injunction and filed affidavits in support of their reply. The defendants also filed an application on 3rd August 1977 praying that Subhash Jain, who had filed an affidavit on behalf of the plaintiffs, be summoned for cross-examination. By its impugned order, the trial Court held that it did not see any justification in the circumstances of the case, for summoning the deponent for cross-examination as prayed for and after rejecting the application filed by the defendants in that behalf, fixed the case for arguments can the interlocutory application on 30th September 1977. Aggrieved by that order, the applicants have preferred this revision petition. Held: The provisions of O.19, R. 2 CPC provide that the Court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. It is thus clear that there is no obligation on a Court under the provisions of O. 19, R. 2 CPC to summon the deponent for cross-examination, in every case where a prayer is made in that behalf. In Guttilal and others v. Madrasi Chakkar Bidi Factory of Girmaji Pet (CMA No. 103 of 1958 decided on 26th December 1958), Dixit, J. (as he then was) observed as follows : "In affidavits on interlocutory applications, there is no obligation on the Court to order cross-examination under O. 19, R. 2 CPC and usually the Court does not allow as the delay involved in most cases would defeat the object of the interlocutory application." 2. I respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. Shri Waghmare, learned counsel for the applicants, relied all the decision reported in Laxman v. Hari Prasad and another (1976 JLJ-SN 36). The facts of the case are not clear from the short-note and it does not appear from that report that the decision of this Court in Guttilal and others v. Madrasi Chakkar Bidi Factory (supra) was brought to the notice of the learned Judge deciding Laxman v. Hari Prasad and another (1976 JLJ-SN 36). From the short-note it appears that all that has been held in that case is that a Court is competent to call a deponent for cross-examination under the provisions of O. 19, R. 2 CPC. The Court undoubtedly possesses this jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of O. 19, R. 2 CPC. From the short-note it appears that all that has been held in that case is that a Court is competent to call a deponent for cross-examination under the provisions of O. 19, R. 2 CPC. The Court undoubtedly possesses this jurisdiction by virtue of the provisions of O. 19, R. 2 CPC. But the question for consideration is whether the failure to order attendance of the deponent for cross-examination, when a prayer is made in that behalf, would amount to failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the trial Court. As held in Guttilal and others v. Madrasi Chakkar Bidi Factory (CMA No. 103 of 1958), it is for the trial Court to decide whether, in the circumstances of a given case, it should order the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination. If, in the circumstances of the instant case, the trial Court found that there were no justifiable, reasons for ordering the attendance of the deponent for cross-examination, it cannot be said that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order or that the trial Court, in exercising its jurisdiction, has acted illegally or with material irregularity. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 1976 JLJ-SN 36 distinguished. CMA No. 103 of 1958 decided on 26-12-1958 relied on. Revision dismissed.