JUDGMENT 1. - The defendant-petitioners have filed this revision petition under S. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the orders dated 23-4-1997, 1-5-1997 and 27-5-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Makarana. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Samshuddin instituted a suit for grant of permanent injunction against the defendant-petitioners on the ground that in the mining area of Makarana, there is a stone quarry No. 188/2 for which the plaintiff holds a licence renewed upto 31-12-1997. It was further averred that the defendants want to forcibly excavate the quarry and take out marble. It was, therefore, prayed that a permanent injunction be issued to the defendants from operating quarry and taking out the stones from the mine in question. 3. Along with the above suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under O. 39, Rr.1 and 2 CPC. On that application, the learned trial Court ordered for the issuance of the notices to the opposite party and fixed the case on 22-4-1997. The defendants were served and on their behalf, their Advocates also put in appearance before the learned trial Court. On 21-4-1997, the learned trial Court appointed a Commissioner. Since the Commissioner could not inspect the site further time was given to him on 22-4-1997. The order sheet dated 22-4-1997 shows that the parties were heard with regard to maintaining 'status quo' on the mine in question and fixed the case on 23-4-1997 for orders. On 23-4-1997, further arguments appear to have been heard by the learned trial Court because it mentioned the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Similarly the Advocates appearing on behalf of defendants No. 1 to 4 also opposed the prayer of the plaintiff. Ultimately, the trial Court passed the following order : HINDI MATTER 367686 4. It appears that an application purporting to be under O. 19, R. 2 read with S. 151 Civil Procedure Code was moved by the plaintiff-non-petitioner on 26-4-1997 mentioning therein that the defendants-petitioners have filed two affidavits of Gulam Nabi (father of plaintiff) and Samshudeen (plaintiff) along with their reply. It was, therefore, prayed that Gulam Nabi and Samshudeen be directed to be present in Court for cross-examination. The defendant-petitioners did not file any reply to application. Ultimately, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 1-5-1997 ordered the defendant-petitioners to produce Samshudeen and Gulam Nabi for cross-examination. 5. It was, therefore, prayed that Gulam Nabi and Samshudeen be directed to be present in Court for cross-examination. The defendant-petitioners did not file any reply to application. Ultimately, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 1-5-1997 ordered the defendant-petitioners to produce Samshudeen and Gulam Nabi for cross-examination. 5. I have heard M/s. R.R. Nagori and N. P. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant-petitioners and M/s. Ranjeet Joshi and O.P. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non-petitioner. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non-petitioner has challenged the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground that since the impugned orders were passed under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC, the petitioners could have availed the right to file an appeal against the above orders, which is provided under O. XLIII, R. 1 CPC. 7. The learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has overfed the above objection on the ground that a perusal of the proceedings of the trial Court as also the application shows that the learned Civil Judge has so far not passed any order. He submitted that from the perusal of the order sheet dated 22-4-1997, it would be clear that arguments were heard only with regard to maintaining of status quo on the mine in question and on 23-4-1997, an interim order was passed and the case was again fixed for arguments. Thus, it is clear that the learned trial Court wanted to decide the application filed under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code finally on merits. However, on one or the other pretext, the learned Civil Judge has adjourned the case and not decided the application by exercising the jurisdiction which was vested in him. 8. In the alternative, it was argued by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants petitioners that the learned trial Court disposed of the application filed under O.19, R. 1 Civil Procedure Code vide its order dated 1-5-1997 and against that order, a revision lies. 9. I have considered the objection raised by the counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner and I find substance in it. From the perusal of the order sheets dated 22-4-1997 and 23-4-1997, it is crystal clear that the learned Civil Judge heard the parties on the matter regarding maintenance of status quo on the mine in question and then passed the order accordingly. I have considered the objection raised by the counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner and I find substance in it. From the perusal of the order sheets dated 22-4-1997 and 23-4-1997, it is crystal clear that the learned Civil Judge heard the parties on the matter regarding maintenance of status quo on the mine in question and then passed the order accordingly. It cannot also be gainsaid that thereafter the case was fixed for arguments. Thus, it appears that probably the learned trial Court intended to dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under O. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code finally on merits. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the above orders were passed under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC. 10. It is trite law that against an order passed under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC, no revision lies but an appeal lies under O. XLIII, R.1 CPC. Hence, in my opinion, this revision is not maintainable against the order dated 23-4-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Makarana. However, this revision can be considered to have been filed against the order dated 1-5-1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Makarana. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the defendants-petitioners has contended that the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the counsel for the plaintiff to cross examine plaintiff himself on his own affidavit as also to Gulam Nabi, the father of the plaintiff. These two affidavits were written in a different context and for a different purpose. He also read out the contents of these two affidavits and submitted that the very object of the plaintiff-non-petitioner is to prolong the case and to reap the benefits of the interim order passed by the trial Court in his favour. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-non-petitioner has supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. 13. I have considered the rival submissions made at he bar. In may opinion, the learned trial Court has committed a jurisdictional error in allowing the counsel for the plaintiff to cross-examine plaintiff Samshudeen on his own affidavit and hence the order dated 1-5-1997 in sofar as it relates to allowing the counsel for the plaintiff-non petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff on his own affidavit is concerned cannot be allowed to stand. Regarding the order of the trial Court for cross examination of Gulam Nabi, father of the plaintiff is concerned, his case stands on a different footing. 14. Regarding the power of the Court to allow cross-examination of the dependents with reference to their affidavits, the provisions are contained in O. XIX R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, there is a conflict of view as to whether this power of cross-examination should be invoked by the Court under O. XIX, R.1 Civil Procedure Code allowing cross-examination of the deponents in interlocutory matters like an application for injunction under 0. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC. In this respect, the Allahabad High Court has taken a view that in such matters, the provisions of O. XIX, R. 1 Civil Procedure Code cannot be pressed into service. However, a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Ram Swaroop v. Bholu Ram, AIR 1991 Raj 56 has taken a contrary view and recognised the powers of the Court to cross-examination of the deponents with reference to the affidavits filed by them even in the interlocutory matters under O.39, Rr. 1 and 2 CPC. 15. In the instant case, the learned trial Court after going through the contents of the affidavit filed by Gulam Nabi on behalf of the petitioners felt persuaded to accord permission to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner to cross-examine Gulam Nabi. Thus, by doing so, the learned lower Court cannot be said to have committed illegality or material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction. Moreover, it is settled law that where substantial justice has been rendered by the order of the learned lower Court. the High Court would not interfere in the revision notwithstanding the fact that the reasons for the same are not correct. 16. For the above reasons, this revision petition is allowed in part and the order dated 1-5 1997 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Makarana in so far as it relates to allowing the counsel for the plaintiff-non-petitioner to cross-examine the plaintiff. Samshuddin on his own affidavit is concerned is separate. The other part of the order allowing the counsel for the plaintiff to cross examine Gulam Nabi with reference to his own affidavit is maintained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.Petition partly allowed. *******