JUDGMENT/ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff-applicant (hereafter 'the applicant') and perused the impugned order dated 29.4.2017 whereby the application filed for allowing cross-examination of the respondent-defendant-non applicant no. 1 (hereafter 'the non applicant') on his affidavit in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been dismissed by the trial court. 2. Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi, counsel appearing for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gulabchand Jain and others Versus Khushal Chand and Others, (1992) AIR(MP) 264 to submit that law inter-alia contemplates cross-examination of the affiants who file affidavits in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Mr. PS Sirohi further submitted that in the instant case the issue in the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the applicant was complex and related to fraud at the instance of non applicants no. 1 and 2 in collusion with non applicant no.3 to side-track the conditions of eligibility for grant of LPG distributorship in Shahpura District Jaipur and hence even at the interlocutory stage no just decision only on affidavits could be reached but required cross-examination of the affiants. Counsel further submitted that the application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is of seminal importance as the rejection thereof would entail the conspirators non applicants no. 1, 2 and 3 succeeding in their nefarious design of grant of LPG distributorship to the applicant no.3 despite her ineligibility both on the ground of not having in her own name the requisite parcel of land nor having the essential deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakh in her bank account on the last date of filing the application for grant of LPG distributorship. Mr. Pratap Singh Sirohi submitted that the application for cross-examination of the affiants in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was moved on 29.4.2017 soon after the filing of the reply to the amended application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC yet has been dismissed on the failure of the trial court to exercise its jurisdiction. Hence this petition. 3. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Gupta appearing for the non applicants no. 1 and 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Mr. Hence this petition. 3. Per contra, Mr. J.P. Gupta appearing for the non applicants no. 1 and 2 Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Mr. Hemant Kumar Gupta appearing for non applicant no.3, who has been allotted the LPG distributorship in Shahpura District Jaipur submitted that applicant has no inviolable and absolute right in law to demand cross-examination of an affiant, who files an affidavit in support of reply to application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Mr. J.P. Gupta submitted that such applications are to be decided on affidavits and other materials such as documents on record and cross-examination on affidavits filed is not contemplated under the scheme of the CPC at that stage. Counsel drew the attention of this Court to Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, which states that where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise- (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property as the Court thinks fit until the disposal of the suit or until further orders. 4. Mr. J.P. Gupta then submitted that the jurisdiction of the trial court on an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is based on prima-facie view on the basis of probative worth of the documents and affidavits filed by the respective parties. It was submitted that in the event cross-examination by resort to Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is allowed in respect of affidavits filed in support of or in opposition to applications under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, it would entail a mini trial even prior to the framing of issues and delay the adjudication of suits which are even otherwise notoriously delayed in their disposal. Counsel submitted that even otherwise if at all in the interest of justice in an extreme case cross-examination of the affiants on affidavits in support of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC or on affidavits in support of reply thereto is to be allowed, very cogent, specific and pressing grounds must obtain and the applicant seeking cross-examination must state such grounds in his application. Vague and general grounds asking almost as a matter of right for the cross-examination of the affiants on affidavits filed in support of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is not contemplated as held by this Court in the case of Abdul Nishar Versus Smt. Saroj & Ors., (1999) 2 WLC(Raj) 767 wherein it was held that the application for cross-examination of affiants on the affidavits filed in support of application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC if not bonafide and apparently with the intent of delaying the trial in the suit, should be dismissed. Mr. J.P. Gupta submitted that the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was first dismissed by the trial court on 12.2.2015. In a civil misc. appeal there against the appellate court vide order dated 9.3.2015 granted interim injunction in favour of applicant and against the non applicants till the filing of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC before the trial court. The reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was filed by the non applicants no. 1 and 2 on or about 28.5.2017 duly support by affidavit. It was submitted that the applicant in the context of the reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC having been filed, in terms of the appellate court's order dated 9.3.2015 was under an obligation to argue the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Instead to avail enjoying the appellate court's interim order passed on 9.3.2015 on a misconstruction thereof the applicant continued to procrastinate and avoid arguing his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Instead to avail enjoying the appellate court's interim order passed on 9.3.2015 on a misconstruction thereof the applicant continued to procrastinate and avoid arguing his application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. To this end the applicant moved an application for amendment of the plaint / application under Order Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on or about 14.7.2015 seeking to bring on record an additional fact regarding the purported ineligibility of the non applicant no.3 to be allowed the LPG distributorship stating that she did not have in her account requisite deposit of Rs. 10.00 lakh on the last date of filing the application for grant of LPG distributorship. This even while overlooking the fact that in terms of conditions of eligibility a sum of Rs. 10.00 lakh was required to be available in the account of the family unit as defined in the brochure for selection which included the account of spouse of the applicant. Mr. J.P. Gupta submitted that in any event the amendment sought under order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 14.7.2015 had nothing whatsoever to do with the application for cross-examination of the affiants who had filed the affidavit in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. The said application if bonafide, could have been moved at the first point of time when the reply to Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was filed. It was not so done, but only after 2 years on or about 29.4.2017 the cross-examination was sought. Mr. J.P. Gupta submitted that all along the applicant has been wrongly enjoying the interim order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the appellate court in the misc. appeal on a clear misconstruction which even the trial court failed to notice. The applicant even though obliged under the order dated 9.3.2015 to argue the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC no sooner reply was filed on 28.5.2017 has to this day not so done. This petition is that very scheme of things an attempt to further delay the matter. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The plain language of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC indicates that an application for interim injunction is to be decided on the basis of "affidavit or otherwise". The word "otherwise" is to be construed ejusdem generis. This petition is that very scheme of things an attempt to further delay the matter. 5. Heard. Considered. 6. The plain language of Order 39 Rule 1 CPC indicates that an application for interim injunction is to be decided on the basis of "affidavit or otherwise". The word "otherwise" is to be construed ejusdem generis. That would necessarily entail reliance on other material of probative worth before the trial court at that stage, such as supporting documents relied on by each of the contesting party. Thus, to my mind no cross-examination of affiants on the affidavits filed with the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and reply thereto is contemplated. However, it is indeed true that the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Gulabchand Jain & Ors. Versus Khushal Chand and others held that cross-examination of the affiants who file the affidavits in support of and opposition of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC can be required on appropriate application by resort to Order 19 Rule 2 CPC. But said case clearly turned on its' own special facts where the allegation was that the statement of the deponent in his affidavit was contradictory to the version given by him in another affidavit filed in another proceedings. The Court however also held that the opportunity of cross-examination to be granted or refused is in the discretion of the Court and if from the conduct and circumstances of the parties, it appears to the Court that the opportunity for cross-examination is being sought for delaying the decision and for protracting the proceedings, the Court would decline to permit the cross-examination. 7. Even this Court in the case of Abdul Nishar Versus Smt. Saroj & Ors. has also held that cross-examination of affiants who file affidavit in support of the application / reply under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC can be permitted but however only when the application therefor is bonafide and based on specified good reasons. 8. The two judgments referred above however appear to have not addressed the fact of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC relating to temporary injunction and interlocutory orders being complete in itself while Order 19 CPC is in the context of its placements appears to be relevant to trials only. 8. The two judgments referred above however appear to have not addressed the fact of Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC relating to temporary injunction and interlocutory orders being complete in itself while Order 19 CPC is in the context of its placements appears to be relevant to trials only. Section 137 of the Evidence Act dealing with cross-examination following examination-in-chief was also not considered in Gulab Chand Jain and Others Versus Kushal Chand Jain and Abdul Nishar Versus Smt. Saroj & Ors.. 9. Be as it may, even on the ratio of the two cases referred above, to ascertain the bonafides of the application for cross examination of the affiants of the affidavit filed in support of the reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC, the stage at which the application for cross-examination was filed is very material, so is the reason set out in the application. On that aspect I find that no ground for cross-examination of the affiants on the affidavits in support of the reply to application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was made out in the petitioner's application for the purpose also belatedly filed. For one, reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was in the first instance filed on 28.5.2017 and in terms of the order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the appellate court on the applicant's Civil Misc. Appeal against the order dated 12.2.2015, the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC ought to have been disposed of one way or the other for reasons analogous to Order 39 Rule 3A CPC with reasonable expedition. That however was not done and instead of arguing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC despite the reply thereto having been filed on 28.5.2015, the applicant chose to move an application for amendment of the suit under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC on 14.7.2015, but that amendment related to the purported ineligibility of the non applicant no.3 on account of not having the requisite Rs. 10.00 lakh in her bank account on the date of filing the application for grant of LPG distributorship. 10.00 lakh in her bank account on the date of filing the application for grant of LPG distributorship. I am of the considered view that such amendment had no relation whatsoever with the right if any of the applicant to move an application for cross-examination of the affiants who filed affidavit in support of reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. Besides, it is on record that even subsequent to the amendment sought by the applicant having been allowed on 7.5.2016 and reply thereto having been filed by the non applicant no.3 on 22.11.2016 and by the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 on 20.1.2017, no application for cross-examination was filed upto 29.4.2017. All through the period of the applicant continued enjoying the interim order dated 9.3.2015 passed by the appellate court in Civil Misc. Appeal on a clear misconstruction as the order aforesaid was to terminate with the filing of the reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC by the non applicants. And thereafter it lay in the trial court's discretion to extend it or not on the merits / lack of merit found. 10. Aside of the aforesaid, as held by this Court in the case of Abdul Nishar Versus Smt. Saroj & Ors., an application for cross-examination of the affiants on the affidavits in support of application / reply thereto has to be based on specific grounds as to why such cross-examination was necessary in the interest of justice. A bare look at the application filed for the purpose by the applicant as annexed to the petition indicates that it is full of generalities without any specifics and quite apparently intended to protract the pending application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC where the applicant fancied it had a favourable interim order. No good and valid cause for the cross-examination having been set out, the application for cross-examination was not bonafide. It was rightly dismissed by the trial court. 11. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that I find no ground to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 29.4.2017 which suffers neither from perversity, patent illegality or error of jurisdiction. It was rightly dismissed by the trial court. 11. The upshot of the foregoing discussion is that I find no ground to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court against the impugned order dated 29.4.2017 which suffers neither from perversity, patent illegality or error of jurisdiction. In fact it is not at all capricious but well considered and passed in the interest of justice of not allowing stalling tactics in the course of proceedings before the trial court. 12. Petition is accordingly dismissed.