JUDGMENT 1. - The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 7-2-1996 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Jodhpur whereby the learned lower Court refused to accord permission to the plaintiff-petitioner to cross-examine Sajjansingh son of Kesharsingh with reference to the affidavit filed by him, which according to the plaintiff was false. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner and the learned counsel for the defendants-non-petitioners and have very carefully gone through the record of the case. 3. The plaintiff-petitioner filed an application purporting to be under Order 19, Rule 1, Civil procedure Code. In that application, it was contended that defendant No. 2 was ordered to file certain documents stated in the application. The certified copies of the documents at item Nos. 1 to 3 were obtained from the Urban Improvement Trust, Jodhpur and according to the plaintiff, they were allegedly prepared by Sajjansingh Patwari. However, Sajjansingh filed an affidavit in support of the defendants to the effect that no record was available in the Office of the Urban Improvement Trust in respect of above documents. According to the plaintiff, this affirmation made by Sajjansingh was palpably false and, therefore, it became necessary for the plaintiff to elicit the truth in the matter by subjecting the witness to cross-examine. The above application was opposed by the defendants. The learned lower Court after hearing both the parties was not inclined to allow the application. Hence, the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner was rejected by the impugned order. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-petitioner has referred to the contents of the application moved by the petitioner under Order 19, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned lower Court ought to have exercised the jurisdiction and allowed the plaintiff to cross-examine Sajjansingh Patwari with reference to the facts stated by him in his affidavit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners have supported the impugned order passed by the learned lower Court and submitted that powers under O. XIX, R.1, C.P.C. should be exercised with due care and caution and permission for cross-examination should only be given when it is thought necessary in the interest of justice. 6. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the non-petitioners have supported the impugned order passed by the learned lower Court and submitted that powers under O. XIX, R.1, C.P.C. should be exercised with due care and caution and permission for cross-examination should only be given when it is thought necessary in the interest of justice. 6. I have considered the rival contentions made at the bar. In Sudha v. Manmohan, 1995 (1) RLW 498 , this Court has held that the order for attendance of deponents of affidavit for cross examination is in discretion of the lower Court and it should not be exercised arbitrarily but judiciously by adopting the justice oriented approach. Similar view has been expressed in Chotu Khan v. Abdul Karim, AIR 1991 Raj 119 and Sultan Khan v. Brijmohan, 1970 RLW 74. 7. In Ram Swaroop v. Bholuram, 1989 (2) RLR 472 , it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that the provisions of O. XIX, C.P.C. apply for deciding the application for grant of temporary injunction under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2, Civil Procedure Code. Thus, in the instant case, it cannot be said that by refusing permission to the plaintiff to cross examination Sajjansingh, the learned lower Court has committed any illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. The learned lower Court had discretion in the matter and it was exercised by it by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 8. In this view of the matter, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned lower Court. 9. In the result, this revision petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costPetition dismissed. *******