H. Baruah, J.

1. In challenge is the order dated 9-12-2009 passed by District Judge, Jorhat in Misc, (J) Case No. 178 of 2008 arising out of Title Suit No. 3 of 2008 filed by the appellants herein as plaintiff's whereby and whereunder the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 135of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 has been dismissed.

2. As it appears the application as indicated above has been primarily dismissed on two grounds, namely:

(i) dissolution of the partnership firm; and

(ii) for want of jurisdiction.

3. The appellants being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order have preferred this appeal on various grounds among others the following:

(i) that the learned District Judge, Jorhat erred in law as well as in facts in rejecting the application holding the same not maintainable;

(ii) that the learned District Judge, Jorhat committed error in holding that the District Judge at Jorhat does not have jurisdiction under Section134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The learned District Judge also committed error in holding that no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court for want of passing off the materials. Section134(2) of