JUDGMENT 1. - The revisionist has filed the instant revision against the order impugned dated 22.2.90 passed by learned Additional Munsif and Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jodhpur in Original Civil Suit No. 388/89 Mishrilal v. Smt. Mankanwar rejecting the application of plaintiff-revisionist for summoning the witnesses who have filed affidavits for cross- examination as contemplated under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC. 2. The learned trial Court rejected the aforesaid application for summoning of the witnesses who have filed affidavits only on the ground that since O. 39 r. 1 and 2 CPC is a self-contained code and in such proceedings O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC are not applicable. In support of his aforesaid conclusion the learned trial Court has placed reliance on a decision rendered by a learned Single Judge in the case of Kusum Kumar Choudhary v. Supra Films, reported in 1971 RLW 282. 3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 4. Learned counsel for the revisionist urged before me that the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Kusum Kumar Choudhary (supra) has already been over-ruled by a decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Swaroop and Ors. v. Bholu Ram, reported in 1989 (2) RLR 472 . In para 9 the Division Bench of this Court ruled thus: "Apart from the principles of natural justice having regard to the statutory provisions contained in Section 30 and Order 19 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Order 39 Rule 1 we are of the view that the Court possesses power to call the deponent for cross-examination when the affidavit has been filed in support of an application under O. 39 r. 1 CPC and we respectfully agree with the view taken in the aforesaid Nagpur and Andhra Pradesh decisions. With great respect we defer (differ) with the view taken in Kusum Kumar Choudhary v. Supra Films (supra)." 5. In reply to the aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the opposite parties urged before me that against the rejection of an application under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC by the learned trial Court no revision is maintainable. With great respect we defer (differ) with the view taken in Kusum Kumar Choudhary v. Supra Films (supra)." 5. In reply to the aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the opposite parties urged before me that against the rejection of an application under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC by the learned trial Court no revision is maintainable. In support of his aforesaid argument the learned counsel for the opposite parties placed reliance on a decision rendered by me in the case of Smt. Sudha & Anr. v. Manmohan & Ors., reported in 1995 DNJ (Raj.) 183. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions, raised at the bar. In my considered opinion after decision by a Division Bench of this Court the decision rendered by learned Single Judge in the case of Kusum Kuniar Choudhary (supra) does not hold water and the learned trial Court has no jurisdiction to reject the application of the plaintiff-revisionist for summoning of the witnesses who have filed affidavit simply on the ground that O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under O. 39 r. 1 and 2 CPC. Now according to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court the provisions contained under O. 19 r.1 and 2 are applicable to the proceedings under O. 39 r. 1 and 2 CPC. 7. As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties to the effect that no revision lies against the rejection application for summoning of the witnesses for cross-examination under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC it is suffice to say that the facts and circumstances of the case reported in 1995 DNJ (Raj.) 183 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. A perusal of my judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Sudha & Anr. (supra) go a long way to prove that in that case it was held that the order for attendance of deponent of the affidavit for cross-examination is absolute discretion of the Courts below. It is true that absolute discretion means not arbitrary but judicious discretion having justice-oriented approach in summoning the deponent of an affidavit for cross-examination. (supra) go a long way to prove that in that case it was held that the order for attendance of deponent of the affidavit for cross-examination is absolute discretion of the Courts below. It is true that absolute discretion means not arbitrary but judicious discretion having justice-oriented approach in summoning the deponent of an affidavit for cross-examination. Order for attendance of the deponent for cross-examination would not be ordinarily be made unless that Court is satisfied and convicted that application for summoning the deponent for cross-examination is bona fide and summoning of the deponent for cross-examination is necessary in the interest of justice. Unless both the conditions co-exist the subordinate Courts have no jurisdiction to summon a deponent for cross-examination under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC. 9. In the aforesaid judgment it has never been held that no revision lies against an order refusing to summon the deponent for cross-examination under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC. The expression 'case' used under explanation of amended Section 115 CPC has a wider meaning than the word 'suit'. Even if aforesaid two conditions are satisfied yet this Court can refuse to exercise its revisional jurisdiction provided the revisional Court is satisfied that if the order impugned is allowed to stand it would neither occasion a failure of justice nor it would cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.As a result of the aforementioned discussion the instant revision is allowed and the order impugned dated 22.2.90 is set aside. The case is remanded to the learned trial Court to dispose of the application moved by the plaintiff-revisionist under O. 19 r. 1 and 2 CPC in the light of the observations made above.Both the parties are directed to bear their own costs.Revision allowed. *******