P. N. Nag ( 1 ) IN this application interesting question of law falls for consideration is as to what should be the interpretation of the word application mentioned in Order 19 Rule 2 Civil Proceure Code ? Does the word application comprehend all applications substantive as well as interlocutory ? ( 2 ) THE relevants facts which have given rise to this application are that after framing of issues on 10th December, 1985 in the petition filed by M/s Sachdeva Metal Works against respondent M/s Modern Pan Industries for cancellation of Design No. 155075 of fans, coolers, grill etc, u/s 51-A of the Design Act, 1911, it was ordered by the Court that the controversy posed by these issues shall be resolved by the affidavits by way of evidence. It is apparent that both the parties did not object to the production of evidence by means of affidavits and as a matter of fact inconsequence of passing of this order, affidavits in form of evidence were filed by the parties. By the present application, the petitioner/applicant has stated that respondent have also filed the affidavit of Sardar Avtar Singh, alleged to be one of the partners of the respondents firm which is false and vague and lacks material particulars. Neither feature of the design which is alleged to have been invented by the respondent after years of research work been mentioned nor the particulars of any research have been furnished. Therefore, Sardar Avtar Singh, a partner of the respondent firm should be directed to appear in the Court for cross-examination. ( 3 ) THE reply of the respondent is grounded on the allegation amongst other, that in fact the affidavit of the respondent discloses all material particulars. The respondent need not state the features of the impugned registered design as the certificate itself incorporate the same. Further since this application is not maintainable the petitioner has no right to cross- examine the respondent. ( 4 ) DURING the course of the argument it was strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the respondent that this application is not maintainable under Order 19 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure as Order 19 Rule 2 refers to only interlocutory applications such as one for injunction, attachment before judgment and appointment of receiver and not substantive applications. In this case since the evidence given in the form of an affidavit by Sardar Avtar Singh is in a substantive petition/ application for cancellation of the design of fans, coolers, grill etc. , Order 19 Rule 2 cannot obviously apply in this case and as such the application requires dismissal on this ground alone. He relied upon the case Bai Zaba Khima v. Amardas Balakdas1. In this case the question arose for consideration was that while dealing with the contentious application for grant of Letters of Administration in Will, the evidence ordered and produced by means of an affidavit as a testimony for deciding the question of due execution of such Will, the Court could proceed to decide the matter on that basis or the Court shall be bound to take oral evidence of the witnesses. In this context their Lordship observed that in case of contentious applications which are converted to suits under Section 295 of the Indian Succession Act procedure as prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure, should be followed and observed : "it is elementary that in a suit the evidence of witnesses must be taken viva voce and affidavits cannot take place of oral evidence. The only provision in the Code of Civil Procedure under which evidence may be given by affidavit is that contained in Order 19 Rules 1 and 2. Order 19 Rule 2 obviously cannot apply for it deals with giving of evidence by affidavit only upon application. There is a conflict of authorities amongst various High Courts as to the true meaning of the word application in this rule. One view is that it means interlocutory applications such as one for injunction, attachment before judgment and appointment of receiver and not a substantive application while the other view is that the language of the enactment is wide enough to comprehend all applications, substantive as well as interlocutory". ( 5 ) HOWEVER, without deciding this question finally they have proceeded on the basis that in case it is assumed that the evidence in the form of affidavits have been ordered to be given under Order 19 Rule 1 which applies generally to all proceedings and even in a suit but that is also subject to the proviso to Order 19 Rule 1. In that case since each side wanted to call to examine the witnesses of the other side and in fact did cross examine the witnesses, the evidence in the form of affidavit could not have been ordered to be given by the Civil Judge in view of proviso to Order 19 Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure and allowing of such practice was deprecated. However since both the parties had assented to leading the evidence by means of affidavits, the Court held that the suit is not vitiated. Therefore, this authority is hardly of any help to the respondent. ( 6 ) THE question that arises for consideration is whether Order 19 Rule 2 applies to interlocutory applications only but also to substantive applications. It is settled rule of interpretation that general words in a statute must receive a general construction unless there is something in the Act itself such as the subject-matter with which the Act is dealing or the context in which the said words are used to show the intention of the legislature that they must be given a restrictive meaning. There import to have wider effect cannot be cut down of arbitrary addition or retrenchment in language. The import of the word application REFERRED TO to in clause under Order 19 Rule 2, therefore, cannot be cut down to restrict to only interlocutory applications . The word application is of wide import and obviously comprehends of applications, substantive as well as interlocutory. This interpretation also finds support-from the necessary intendment of the legislature which is so apparent from the scheme of the provisions of this Order 19. Rule 3 of Order 19 which deals with the verification aspect as to how and in what way the verification of the affidavits should be modelled treats and deals with the interlocutory applications separately. In other words this rule makes a distinction for the purpose of verification between the interlocutory applications and other applications namely substantive applications and suits etc. This leads to inevitable inference and reflect the clear intention of the legislature that the word application REFERRED TO to in Order 19 Rule 2 is of wide import, and comprehends all applications, substantive as well as interlocutory. This leads to inevitable inference and reflect the clear intention of the legislature that the word application REFERRED TO to in Order 19 Rule 2 is of wide import, and comprehends all applications, substantive as well as interlocutory. I am, therefore, unable to pursuade myself to accept the view that the word application REFERRED TO to in Order 19 Rule 2 refers to only the interlocutory applications and not substantive applications. ( 7 ) EVEN if it is assumed for arguments sake that Order 19 Rule 2 refers only to interlocutory applications and such an order of adducing evidence in the form of affidavits should not have been ordered under Order 19 Rule 2 and that even otherwise Order 19 Rule 1 although applies to all the applications and the suits, the evidence should not have been ordered because of proviso to Order 19 Rule 1, in that situation as well, the application for cross-examination of Sardar Avtar Singh has got to be allowed. As already stated there was no objection on behalf of the parties for giving evidence in the form of affidavits. In pursuance of the order of the Court, the evidence in the form of affidavit has already, in fact, come on the record and it will be read now as evidence. It is settled principle of law that cross-examination is one of the most effective and universally recognised means of probing into and testing the credibility of a witness and the veracity of his testimony. The right to cross-examine a witness whose evidence is sought to be used against a party is a very valuable right. Negation of this right to the petitioner at this stage would not only deprive the petitioner of his valuable right to cross-examine the deponent Sardar Avtar Singh but also may deprive the Court of judging the creditibility and testimony of the witness and result in frustration of the administration of justice. Therefore in these facts and circumstances of the case it would be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the deponent Sardar Avtar Singh as prayed for by him. No other point was urged. I, therefore, allow IA No. 4896/86 and allow the petitioner to cross-examine the deponent Sardar Avtar Singh. IA No. 4896/86 stands disposed of.