Cross-examination rights and reasoned ex parte injunctions require full pleadings review and findings on interim relief factors.

A party cannot be denied cross-examination merely by isolating select pleadings; the court must assess the entire record to determine whether the witness is truly adverse. Where the broader pleadings and connected proceedings show alignment with the calling party's case, the issue of adverse interest requires fresh consideration, and refusal of cross-examination cannot stand. An ex parte injunction must also be supported by reasons showing application of mind to prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. A cryptic order granting interim relief without that analysis is unsustainable and must be reconsidered in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a party could be denied the right to cross-examine a witness examined on the other side when the pleadings disclosed adverse interest. (ii) Whether an ex parte injunction order could be sustained without reasons showing consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Issue (i): Whether a party could be denied the right to cross-examine a witness examined on the other side when the pleadings disclosed adverse interest.

Analysis: The right of cross-examination under the law of evidence is available to the adverse party. Whether a witness is adverse cannot be decided by isolating a few averments in the written statement; the entire pleadings must be read. Where the material pleadings and even the related proceedings showed that the witness had taken a stand supporting the case of the party calling him, the question of adverse interest required a fresh examination on the whole record.

Conclusion: The order refusing cross-examination was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.

Issue (ii): Whether an ex parte injunction order could be sustained without reasons showing consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

Analysis: An injunction order must disclose reasons demonstrating application of mind to the settled requirements for interim relief. A cryptic order that merely grants injunction without indicating the basis for prima facie satisfaction, balance of convenience and irreparable injury does not meet the standard of a reasoned judicial order.

Conclusion: The ex parte injunction order was set aside and the interlocutory application was directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Both revision petitions succeeded, and the impugned interlocutory orders were annulled with directions for fresh consideration by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: The right to cross-examine depends on the existence of adverse interest on the basis of the entire pleadings, and an interim injunction must rest on a reasoned assessment of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.

---