PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Dhar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. In this revision application, order dated 10.01.2017 passed in Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014, arising out of Title Suit No. 360/2014, pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati is put under challenge. Present petitioners are defendants in the said suit preferred by the respondents as plaintiffs. The suit is for declaration, injunction and damages. Plaintiffs/respondents are aggrieved by the action of defendants/petitioners for their production/publication and screening the unlawful usages of the trailer truck bearing registration No. NL/01D-4300 and the trade name "Jainex" repeatedly in an unauthorized, unlawful, illegal and arbitrary manner in its film, "Mardaani". The said action of defendants/petitioners are damaging thereby tarnishing the goodwill and reputation of plaintiffs/respondents so associated with the property and the name "Jainex". The defendant/petitioner No. 1, M/S Yashraj Films Private Limited is a company having its corporate office at Mumbai and the rest of the defendant/petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the agents and directors of the said company. Along with the suit an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) registered as Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014 was also filed thereby praying for temporary injunction restraining defendants/petitioners from telecasting the said film "Mardaani" or part thereof in the form of trailer or otherwise specifically on 29.11.2014 at Sony Entertainment Television or otherwise pending final disposal of the injunction application.

3. The present defendants/petitioners filed the joint written statement on 24.02.2015 through their engaged counsel at Guwahati. Along with said written statement a joint written objection was also filed in the said Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014. Both in the written statement and written objection one Ashish Singh, a resident of Mumbai sworn and signed the respective affidavits on 17.01.2015 at Mumbai and the same was notarized before the Notary at Mumbai.

4. The present respondents filed an application under Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC in the Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014 and the said petition was registered as petition No. 3189 of 07.08.2015. In the said petition plaintiffs/respondents raised the issue that a false affidavit was signed and filed by the deponent Ashish Singh on behalf of defendants/respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and the same was not supported by any cogent reason in doing so nor identified as per requirements under the prescribed law thus challenging the genuineness of the signatures of the deponent agent on the said written objection filed in Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014. It is further stated that the affidavit was sworn at Mumbai and the said Ashish Singh was identified by an advocate from the State Bar Council of the Gauhati High Court. The said identification of the deponent without verification of his existence, identity and authority as such, the affidavit filed in support of the objection against the injunction application had no value in the eye of law. In order to ascertain whether the deponent is the authorized and a genuine person, the deponent Ashish Singh is necessary to be present in the court for his cross-examination by plaintiffs/respondents. No resolution of the Board of Directors of the defendant/petitioner No. 1, Company was annexed thereby showing that the said deponent was authorized by the said company to take steps in the suit. Further it was pleaded that as there was no proper verification on the affidavit plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to know from what source the said deponent deposed the factual part in the written objection and for the said reason the presence of said deponent Ashish Singh is r