JUDGMENT 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-Sexon 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 CPC shall be decided on affidavits alone." 3. 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 CPC and has acted illegally in observing that the application of the Plaintiff shall be decided on affidavits alone. 4. 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. 5. I have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and I have gone through the impugned order and I have a feeling that as a reasonable man the subordinate court should have permitted the Defendant applicant to cross-examine the Plaintiff. The subordinate court has at least not proceeded in a reasonable manner in refusing the prayer of the Defendant applicant. The subordinate court has at least not proceeded in a reasonable manner in refusing the prayer of the Defendant applicant. Order 33 Rule 6 reads as below: Notice of day for receiving evidence of applicant being an indigent person-Whether the Court sees no reason to reject the application on any of the grounds stated in Rule 5, it shall fix a day (of which at least ten days' clear notice shall be given to the opposite party and the Government pleader) for receiving such evidence as the applicant may adduce in proof of his being an indigent person and for bearing any evidence which may be adduced in disproof thereof. Rule 7 reads as below: (1) On the day so fixed or as soon thereafter as may be convenient the Court shall examine the witnesses (if any) produced by either party, and may examine applicant or his agent, and shall make (a full record of their evidence). (1-A) The examination of the witnesses under Sub-rule (1) shall be confined to the matters specified in Clause (b), Clause (c) of Rule 5 but the examination of the applicant or his agent may relate to any of the matters specified in Rule 5. (2) The Court shall also hear any argument which the parties may desire to offer on the question whether, on the face of the application and of the evidence, if any, taken by the Court under Rule 6 or under this rule the applicant is or is not subject to any of the prohibitions specified in Rule 5. (3) The Court shall then either allow or refuse to allow the applicant to sue as an Indigent person." 6. The aforesaid provisions of Order 33 may not strictly apply to the prayer of the Defendant for examining the Plaintiff at the stage when the applicant wants to cross-examine the Plaintiff but in face of the above provisions the subordinate court should have reasonably afforded an opportunity to the Defendant for cross-examining the Plaintiff and bringing out correct state of affairs. 7. As the applicant contends that some imposter is behind the litigation, it is but proper that the Defendant applicant should get an opportunity to point out as to whether the Plaintiff is the real person or not. 7. As the applicant contends that some imposter is behind the litigation, it is but proper that the Defendant applicant should get an opportunity to point out as to whether the Plaintiff is the real person or not. As contended by the learned Counsel for opposite party that the Plaintiff had been present on every day it was all the more reasonable that the trial court should have afforded an opportunity to the Defendant to cross-examine the Plaintiff when she was attending the court on every day. If the trial court comes to the conclusion that the move of the Defendant applicant is with some malafide intention, it would be open to the trial court to reject the prayer after giving cogent reasons in support of its order. 8. In 1936 AWR 651, Kunwar Indrajit Singh v. Gir Raj Singh a Division Bench of this Court has observed as below: ...A mere affidavit is not evidence, and the person making the affidavit is to be subjected to cross-examination if it is to be used likewise. 9. The learned Civil Judge has not appreciated the dictum of law laid down in 1968 AWR 88 , Kailash Nath Agarwal v. Amar Nath Agarwal and has tried not to apply that case to the facts of the present case in the following words: The authority cited evokes all my respect but in my humble and respectful opinion does not cover the facts of case (Emphasis-here in italics-is mine). 10. On the above ground any ruling of this Court can be made inapplicable to a particular case. The learned Judge has not acted reasonably in this regard also. 11. In the result, the revision petition succeeds and the Impugned judgment of the learned Civil Judge, Jaunpur, dated 21-5-1982 Is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to the learned Civil Judge for deciding the Plaintiff's application under Order 33 CPC strictly In accordance with law after giving full opportunity to the Defendants to contest the claim of the Plaintiff. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.