Judgment : Plaintiffs are the petitioners in this civil revision petition against the dismissal of their I.A. No.87 of 1996 in O.S. No.5699 of 1992 on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras. The said application has been filed under 0.19, Rule 2, C.P.C. 2. The allegation in the supporting affidavit is that after the ex parte decree granted in the suit on 212. 1993, the 2nd respondent- 2nd defendant filed I.A. No.14050 of 1994 for excusing the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree and that in the supporting affidavit thereof, false averments have been made by the 2nd defendant and that in order to prove the falsity of the averments, the 2nd defendant should be permitted to be cross-examined by the plaintiffs and that hence the abovesaid I.A. was filed under 0.19, Rule 2, C.P.C. 3. The said supporting affidavit in I.A. No.14050 of 1994 is dated 8. 1994 and counter was filed by the petitioners herein to the said application or about 1. 1995 itself, wherein the above referred to alleged false statements have also been adverted to. While so the present I.A. No.87 of 1996 has been presented in the court below only on 212. 1995, that is nearly after a year from the said date 1. 1995. 4. The court below dismissed the said I.A. mainly on the abovesaid delay of about one year from 1. 1995 to 212. 1995. But learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no delay at all and that the 2nd respondent- 2nd defendant alone has been dragging on the abovesaid LA. No. 14050 of 1994. 5. First of all, nothing is shown before me to the effect that the 2nd defendant alone was dragging on the hearing of LA. No. 14050 of 1994. That apart, even assuming that the 2nd defendant was dragging on the hearing of I. A. No. 14050 of 1994, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing a petition under O.19, Rule 2, C.P.C. for the abovesaid prayer, immediately after the abovesaid counter on 1. 1995. Therefore, there is certainly delay of about one year in this regard. That apart, even assuming that the 2nd defendant was dragging on the hearing of I. A. No. 14050 of 1994, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing a petition under O.19, Rule 2, C.P.C. for the abovesaid prayer, immediately after the abovesaid counter on 1. 1995. Therefore, there is certainly delay of about one year in this regard. 0.19, Rule 2(1), C.P.C. says thus: “Upon any application evidence may be given by affidavit, but the court may, at the instance of either party, order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent.” Thus, this Rule gives discretion to the court in allowing or not allowing such cross-examination. That is why the Rule uses the word ‘may’. The court below exercised the said discretion and on the ground of the abovesaid delay, has refused to grant the permission sought for by the petitioners. In the above circumstances, I am unable to see any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order since I find no non-judicial exercise of the said discretion. 6. That apart, the proviso to Sec. 115, Civil Procedure Code also has not been satisfied. Obviously, the impugned order has been passed in the interlocutory application. The proviso to Sec.115, C.P.C. runs thus: “Provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where. .(a) The order if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceeding, or .(b) The order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure to justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.” Nothing has been alleged even in the present grounds that any of the requirements mentioned in the said proviso is in existence in the present case. It is not even stated that the impugned order, if allowed to stand would occasion failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. What all the petitioners want to contend in this regard, even according to learned counsel for the petitioners, have been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners in LA. No. 14050 of 1994. What all the petitioners want to contend in this regard, even according to learned counsel for the petitioners, have been stated in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioners in LA. No. 14050 of 1994. In the light of the said counter affidavit, it is open to the petitioners to establish before the court below, the correctness of their contention about the falsity of the averments made by the 2nd defendant in his supporting affidavit to LA. No. 14050 of 1994. 7. Therefore, there is absolutely no warrant for my interference under Sec.115, C.P.C. Accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently C.M.P. No.2077 of 1996 for stay is dismissed.