In this revision petition the petitioner has impugned the order dated 24.8.91 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge No.l, Guwahati in Title Suit No, 12 of 1991 rejecting the prayer to cross-examine the plaintiff-opposite parties on the averments made in the application for grant of ad interim injunction supported by affidavit. 2. Plaintiff-opposite party No.l instituted Title Suit No. 12 of 1991 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge No.l, Guwahati for a declaration that the plaintiff has equal right, title and interest in the business of M/s Dipti Gas Agency as joint partner/proprietor of the same and that the defendant No.l was not the sole proprietor, and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.l and/or his agent, men, servant from preventing the plaintiff from taking part in managing and running business of M/s Dipti Gas Agency and alternatively for a decree for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- with interest @6^% from the date of filing of the suit till realisation. 3. The case of the plaintiff as stated in para 1 of the revision petition are as follows :- “...... ,, The plaintiff/opposite party No.l's case as stated in the plaint is, inter alia, that the petitioner/defendant No.l took a loan of Rs.50,000/-from the plaintiff/opp.party No.l agreeing to take the plaintiff/opposite party No.l as partner with right to manage and run the business of L. P.O. distributorship under the name and style M/s Dipti Gas Distribution, that the petitioner /defendant No.l was appointed distributor of Liquified Petrolium Gas for Dispur area, Gauhati and accordingly an agreement was executed between the proforma opposite parties No,2 to 4 and the petitioner/defendant No.l as sole proprietor of 'Dipti Gas Agency', that for all practical purposes the business of the firm M/s Dipti Gas Agency was a partnership venture of the plaintiff/opposite party No. 1 and the petitioner/defendant No.l, that on 16.8.90 the petitioner/defendant No.l prevented the plaintiff/opposite party No.l from taking part in the business of M/s Dipti Gas Agency." In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the plaintiff/opposite party No.l, the facts stated in paragraph 1 of this petition has not been specifically controverted or denied. 4. The plaintiff/opposite party also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, which was registered as Misc. 4. The plaintiff/opposite party also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of ad-interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 13 of 1991 in T.S.No. 12 of 199!. The learned Assistant District Judge on the basis of the pleading in the plaint and the petition for granting of ad-interim injunction supported by an affidavit, issued an ex-parte temporary injunction on 9.2.91 restraining the defendant-petitioner from obstructing the plaintiff-opposite party No.l in taking part in management and business of M/s Dipti Gas Agency. The defendant-petitioner after receipt of the notice appeared and filed objection. The defendant-petitioner also filed an application under Order 19 Rule 2 CPC to cross-examine the plaintiff-opposite party for proper adjudication of the question of granting injunction. That prayer was objected to by the plaintiff-opposite party and the learned Assistant District Judge, by the impugned order dated 24.5.91 rejected the said application. The defendant petitioner has thereafter approached this Court in this revision petition. 5. I have heard Mr. C.K.Sarma Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party No 1. 6. Mr. C.K.Sarma Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the plaintiff-opposite party obtained an ex-parte injunction by suppressing facts and that some important documents are lying with the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, it was necessary to cross-examine the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the same allegations the plaintiff-opposite party instituted T.S.No. 199 of 1990 in the Court of learned Munsiff and similar prayer for ad-interim injunc­tion was rejected by the learned Munsiff by order dated 26.10.90 passed in Misc. (J) Case No. 89 of 1990 in T.S.No. 199 of 1990 and against the said order the plaintiff-opposite party preferred Misc. Appeal No.45 of 1990 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge No.l. Gauhati and that during the pendency of that appeal, the plaintiff-opposite party has again filed the instant suit (T.S.No. 12 of 1991) in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge on same facts and has obtained the ex-parte ad-interim injunc­tion by suppressing the facts. Appeal No.45 of 1990 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge No.l. Gauhati and that during the pendency of that appeal, the plaintiff-opposite party has again filed the instant suit (T.S.No. 12 of 1991) in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge on same facts and has obtained the ex-parte ad-interim injunc­tion by suppressing the facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner has sub­mitted that granting injunction in the instant case has the serious consequence of depriving the defendant-petitioner to run his business of supply of LPG to the consumers as dealer appointed by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the learned Assistant District Judge while passing the impugned order has failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested on him in not taking into consideration the reasons and grounds on which the petitioner approached to cross-examine the plaintiff-opposite party. 7. Mr. J.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 on the other hand, has submitted that in an interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction, Court is to take decision on the basis of affidavit alone and that the provision of Order 19 Rule 2 has no application in respect of disposal of an application under Order 39 Rule 1. As such, the learned Assistant District Judge has correctly rejected the prayer. In support of the contention the learned counsel for opposite party has placed reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the of- Kanbi Mavji vs. K.Manjibhai ( AIR 1968 Guj 198 ) and also decision of Andhra High Court in the case of S.V. Rao vs. M-Appalaswamy ( AIR 1978 AP 103 ). The learned counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 30 of 1980 (Union of India vs. Abdul Matlib), wherein it has been held that proceeding under order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be disposed of within 30 days and can be decided on the basis of affidavits. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil Revision No. 30 of 1980 (Union of India vs. Abdul Matlib), wherein it has been held that proceeding under order 39 Rule 1 CPC should be disposed of within 30 days and can be decided on the basis of affidavits. The learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that when both the parties filed affidavits the matter of injunction should be decided on the basis of affidavit and that if the prayer to cross-examine is allowed, plaintiff-opposite party may make similar prayer to cross-examine defendant in respect of his averments made in the objection and that will frustrate the mandate of law to dispose of injunction matter within 30 days. Learned counsel for opposite party has also submitted that even if the application under Order 19 Rule 2 is maintainable, the learned Assistant District Judge committed no errors of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order and, as such, no case for interference under section 115 CPC has been made out. Learned counsel for opposite party has further submitted that the allegation of suppression of facts are wholly unfounded, inasmuch as, in the plaint plaintiff has stated that the earlier suit was dismissed on withdrawal with leave to file a fresh suit. 8. As against the aforesaid decisions on which reliance has been placed on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ali Bin Aifan ( AIR 1983 AP 114 ) and also another decision of the same High Court in the case of Srinivas Rao vs. Monohar Rao ( AIR 1981 AP 406 ). 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behal1' of the opposite party and have perused the impugned order and other documents annexed to this petition. I am unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party that in disposing of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC the Court is to confine its enquiry to the statements made in the affidavits. Order 39 Rule 1 CPC provides as follows : 1. I am unable to accept the submissions made on behalf of the opposite party that in disposing of an application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC the Court is to confine its enquiry to the statements made in the affidavits. Order 39 Rule 1 CPC provides as follows : 1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted.-Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or b) that the defendant threatens, or intends to remove or dispose of his property with a view to (defrauding) his creditors, c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or to make such other order for the purpose of staying and prevent­ing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale removal or disposition of the property (or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff, in relation to any property in dispute in the suits as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further order). 10. The interim injunction in some case, may have the effect of rendering full relief for which the suit is instituted. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 contemplates that case for interim injunction is to be proved by affidavit or otherwise. The expression 'or otherwise' means that allegations made in the application can be proved not only by affidavit but also by documentary and oral evidence. As such, it cannot be said that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 can be decided only on the basis of the statements made in the affidavit. In my opinion under Order 39 Rule 1, the Court has not only the power to dispose of the application praying for temporary injunction on affidavits but also has jurisdiction to summon the deponent of the affidavit for cross-examination either suo moto or at the instance of a party. However, elaborate procedure of adducing evidences to prove a case for interim injunction is not warranted. However, elaborate procedure of adducing evidences to prove a case for interim injunction is not warranted. In the case of Kanbi Mavji Khimji (supra), the Gujarat High Court held that where the Court has been expressly permitted to decide interlocutory matters on affidavit, the provisions of Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 CPC cannot be pressed into service. Following the said decision of the Gujarat High Court, identical view was expressed by Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case S.V. Rao (supraj. But in the case of Srinivas Rao (supra) and AH Bin Aifan (supra), Andhra Pradesh High Court expressed a contrary view. In the case of Ali Bin Aifan (supra) the Andhra High Court has held that provisions of Order 19 Rule 2 CPC are attracted to in an application filed for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and that while the Court has ample power to dispose of the matter on affidavit, the Court has also jurisdiction to summon deponent of the affidavit for cross-examination either suo moto or at the instance of any party, if the Court comes to the conclusion that circumstances warranted summoning the deponent for cross-examination. With respect, I differ with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kanbi Mavji (supra) and I am one with the views expressed by the Andhra High Court in the cases of Srinivas Rao and the Ali Bin Aifan (supra). This Court in the case of Civil Revision No. 30 of 1980 (Union of India vs. Abdul Matlib) held that a proceeding under Order 39 Rule 1 should be disposed of within 30 days and can be decided on the basis of affidavits only and it is not the decision of this Court that an application under Order 39 Rule 1 should be disposed of only on the basis of affidavit. 11. In the instant case, as per pleading in the plaint, the plaintiff was prevented/disallowed to take part in the management of the Dipti Gas Agency on and from 16.8.90. This is also the finding of the learned Munsiff in Misc. (J) Case No. 89 of 1990 in Title Suit No. 190 of 1990. 11. In the instant case, as per pleading in the plaint, the plaintiff was prevented/disallowed to take part in the management of the Dipti Gas Agency on and from 16.8.90. This is also the finding of the learned Munsiff in Misc. (J) Case No. 89 of 1990 in Title Suit No. 190 of 1990. The business carried on in Dipti Gas Agency is the dealership of LPG as agent under the opposite party No2,and defendant petitioner is the appointed dealer of LPG.In the plaint the plaintiff has also made an alternative prayer for a decree of reali­sation of Rs. 50,000/-with costs on the allegation that he advanced Rs.50,000/-for carrying out the dealership for Dipti Gas Agency on condition to manage Dipti Gas Agency jointly either as partner or as co-proprietor. Whether under the terms of dealership of LPG, alleged partnership is void or voidable has to be considered. Under the aforesaid complex facts and circumstances, the cross-examination of the deponent of the application for injunction made on behalf of the plaintiff appears to be necessary for arriving at a correct decision. The learned Assistant District Judge has arbitrarily rejected the prayer without applying mind to reason and ground for which the prayer to cross-examine was made and has thus failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in law. The impugned order therefore cannot be sustained. The submission made on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party that if the defendant petitioner is allowed to cross-examine the deponent of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 plaintiff has also the right to cross-examine the deponent who has sworn in the affi­davit on behalf of the defendant No. 1 in the written objection. The plaintiff not having approached the Court below for cross-examination of the deponent of written objection, is not entitled to cross examine only because the defendant's prayer for cross-examination of the deponent of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 for grant of injunction is allowed. 12. In the result, the petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The learned Assistant District judge is directed to allow the defendant petitioner to cross-examine the deponent of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. He will dispose of the matter most expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 ("three) weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. The learned Assistant District judge is directed to allow the defendant petitioner to cross-examine the deponent of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 CPC for grant of temporary injunction. He will dispose of the matter most expeditiously, preferably within a period of 3 ("three) weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. The parties are directed to appear in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge on 10.7.91 to receive the order fixing the date of cross-examination. 13. The learned Asstt. District Judge in deciding the question of granting injunction will take into consideration whether the plaintiff has a priina facie case, whether the balance of convenience or inconvenience for and against granting injunction is in favour of the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, if the ad-interim injunction is not granted. The learned Assistant District Judge will certainly take into consideration the alternative prayer of the plaintiff for a decree of recovery of Rs. 50.000/- with interest. The learned Assistant District Judge will also take into considera­tion the fact that on and from 16.8.90, the plaintiff had not been allowed to participate in the management of Dipti Gas Agency and shall apply his mind to as to whether any of the conditions specified in Order 39 Rule 1 CPC has been satisfied for granting of ad-interim injunction. 14. Before parting, I would like to observe that very often, Courts below are granting ex-parte ad-interim injunction merely on asking without applying mind as to whether the conditions precedent for grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction is satisfied or not. Such trend must be discouraged. In the instant case, it appears that while granting ex-parte injunction the learned Assistant District Judge has totally ignored the provision of Order*39 Rule 3 which provides :- "The Court shall in all cases, except where it appears that the object of granting the injunction would be defeated by the delay, before granting an injunction, direct notice of the application for the same to be given to the opposite party". When as per pleadings as well as per finding of the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 199 of 1990 that plaintiff was prevented or disallowed from participating in the management of Dipti Gas Agency, with effect from 16.8.90, question of defeat of the object of granting injunction apparently did not arise at all. When as per pleadings as well as per finding of the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 199 of 1990 that plaintiff was prevented or disallowed from participating in the management of Dipti Gas Agency, with effect from 16.8.90, question of defeat of the object of granting injunction apparently did not arise at all. I am constrained to observe that such arbitrary manner of passing exparte injunction is not at all expected from the senior member of the judiciary in the rank of Assistant District Judge No. 1.