An application for injunction is to be decided in a summary manner, and the Legislative intent is clear that these matters should be disposed of as quickly as possible.

This revision is directed against the order dated 23-11-92 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat, in Misc (J) Case No. 132 of 1992, arising out of Title Suit No. 12/92, rejecting the petition under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioners (plaintiffs) for production of seven persons mentioned in the petition, for cross-examination.

2. The facts for the purpose of the Case may be briefly stated as follows :

The petitioners are the grandsons of late Raibahadur Shiva Prasad Barooah and late Kamal Kumari Barooah and sons of late Romendra Prasad Barooah. Late Kamal Kumari Barooah during her lifetime created a Trust by a registered deed of trust at Jorhat, known as Kamal Kumari Barooah Trust. The opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) are the Trustees of the said Trust opposite party - Kuhum Tea Company Pvt. Limited. The petitioners are two of nine beneficiaries of the said Trust. The aforesaid Trust was created on 12-8-78 by late Kamal Kumari Barooah. She also made a Will on the same day at Jorhat bequeathing her properties as mentioned in the will.

3. In the Will it was further mentioned that her personal liabilities, such as, income-tax, wealth-tax, estate duty and other taxes and rent etc. would be first paid out of the funds of the estate. Thereafter, the entire residual property either cash or in the form of properties or both would go to the Trust created for the benefit of beneficiaries mentioned in the Trust deed. The fist and second opposite party were made executors of the Will. The third opposite party was inducted as third trustee in the aforesaid trust bythe opposite party No. 1 in the year 1989. By order dated 23-2-80 the District Judge granted letter of administration.

4. At the time of making the Trust and the Will referred to above, the petitioners were minors and studying in school. During their minority the petitioners father Ramendra Prasad Barooah died. By a letter dated 21-4-80, Hemendra Prasad Barooah - the first opposite party informed the petitioners that late Kamal Kumari Barooah created a Trust and a Will and they were two of the nine beneficiaries. He further informed them that he and the second opposite party had already been granted letter of administration by the District Judge, Upper Assam Division, Jorhat, for discharging all liabilities of late Kamal Kumari Barooah and to vest the residual property in the Trust and they would be informed about the progress of the Trust.

5. On the death of Kamal Kumari Barooah on 11-9-78 there were three partnership firms, namely, Haroocharai Tea Company, Gatoonga, Tea Company and Kuhum Tea Company, owning serveral tea estates. In each firm late Kamal Kumari Barooah had 1/3rd share. On her death, her shares in both capital and profit of all the six tea gardens vested in the Trust.

6. In 1984 the aforesaid three partnership firms were dissolved by mutual arrangement by memorandum of understanding dated 9-3-84 and by deeds of dissolution dated 29-12-84. At the time of dissolution of the partnership firms an understanding was arrived at by and between the parties that the aforesaid Six tea estates would be equally divided amongst Hemedra Prasad Barooah Group, late Ramendra Prasad Group and Kamal Kumari Barooah Trust. According to the petitioners the two estates, namely, Mokrung and Kuhum are out and out trust properties. It was also decided that share of each of the partners would be taken over by separate companies owned by each group.

7. The Trust Company and Opposite party No. 6 filed an application under Ss. 391(1) and 393 of the Companies Act, 1956 before this Court (Company Application No. 2/90) for amalgamation of the Companies. This Court by order dated 14-9-90 directed to advertise the application and the scheme of amalgamation in the Newspaper and to hold meetings of the share holders of the two companies to discuss and consider the scheme and one Advocate of this Court was appointed