Honble YAMIN, J.–This revision petition has been preferred against the order of the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Osian dated 4.5.98 by which he refused the petitioner plaintiff to cross examine witnesses of defendants on their affidavits in civil misc. case no. 21/97 which was registered on an application under order 39, Rule 2 C.P.C. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that trial court should have allowed the petitioner to cross examine two witnesses under Order 19 C.P.C. as the affidavits of Trilok Chand and Sohan Dan stated wrong facts. He submitted that the trial court refused cross examination on flimsy grounds. (3). On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no need to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge because the application was vague and that all the facts were mentioned in the affidavits of the two witness which did not require any cross examination. He cited Bharion Lal & Anr. vs. Chand Mal & Anr. (1), wherein it was held that miscellaneous application may be decided and interlocutory orders may be passed on the basis of affidavits without their being order of the Court under Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. He also cited Chotu Khan vs. Abdul (2) wherein it was held that the court can reject the prayer to summon deponent for cross examination if such prayer be prone to delay disposal or is not bonafide. He also cited Smt. Suda & Anr. vs. Manmohan & Ors. (3), wherein it has been held that when the application was vague and not disclosing bonafide reasons the interlocutory order refusing to summon the witnesses for cross examination under Order 19 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. after giving cogent reasons and convincing reason would not require indulgence under Section 115 of the C.P.C. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner carried me through the record which was summoned in order to appreciate that the impugned order of the learned trial Judge suffered from infirmity. My view is that in case such a cross examination is allowed in each and every case the very purpose of early disposal of such applications would be frustrated. I am of the view that a petitioner has to submit very cogent reasons as to why does he want to cross examine the witnesses. My view is that in case such a cross examination is allowed in each and every case the very purpose of early disposal of such applications would be frustrated. I am of the view that a petitioner has to submit very cogent reasons as to why does he want to cross examine the witnesses. The application of the petitioner dated 20.3.98 in which he prayed for cross examination of the two witnesses is a general type of application and does not mention the spe- cific points on which the petitioner wanted to cross examine witnesses. It has been stated in Para No.6 of the application that the affidavits of Trilok Chand and Sohan Dan are false and it was in the interest of justice that they may be allowed to be cross examined on their affidavits. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before me that the application was presented in order to test varacity of the witnesses. (5). I am of the view that the application is vague and on such an application cross examination of witnesses under Order 19 should not be allowed. I do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the order of the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge has not committed any jurisdictional error by disallow- ing the application. (6). Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.