Judgement 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. 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 Chairman of the meeting. 8. The petitioners came to know about the application for amalgamation of the Companies from the advertisement published in the Newspaper. According to them, though Kuhum and Mokrung Tea Estates belong to the Trust, none of the Trustees (Opp. Parties Nos. 8. The petitioners came to know about the application for amalgamation of the Companies from the advertisement published in the Newspaper. According to them, though Kuhum and Mokrung Tea Estates belong to the Trust, none of the Trustees (Opp. Parties Nos. 1 to 3) had ever informed the petitioners about the execution, administration, progress and profit of the aforesaid trust for the last 12 years, i.e. from the date of its inception. Besides, they also did not render any account to the beneficiaries including the petitioners during this period though it was mandatory under the provisions of the Companies Act as well as of the trust deed. To the knowledge of the petitioners, during this period the trust has made considerable income from the trust properties as per materials available on records in the office of the Registrar of Companies, Shillong. 9. The first petitioner by his letter dated 5-11-90 addressed to the Regional Director, Company Law Board, Eastern Region, Calcutta and to the Public Trustee, New Delhi, informed that the first to third opposite party have committed breach of trust by attempting to amalgamate the trust company with M/s. B and A Plantation and Industries Limited. According to the petitioners the first to third opposite party are bound to fulfil the purpose and object of the trust and to obey the direction of the author of the trust, but they failed to discharge their duties. They further allege that there has been misappropriation of trust fund by the first to third opposite party and they have acted with an intention to grab the entire property. The petitioners, therefore, have filed a suit (TS 41/91) in the Court of the Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat, for declaration, rendition of accounts of Kamal Kumari Barooah Trust, removal of Trustees and appointment of new Trustees etc. 10. Along with the plaint by Annexure-I petition, the petitioners prayed for temporary injunction restraining first to third opposite party from continuing their illegal activities such as transferring or selling or otherwise dealing with the shares held by them. This petition was supported by affidavit sworn by the first petitioner. 11. The Court by order dated 21-8-91 granted ad interim injunction and issued notice to the opposite party. By Annexure-III the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed objection against the grant of temporary injunction. Similarly, some of the other defendants, viz., Defendants Nos. This petition was supported by affidavit sworn by the first petitioner. 11. The Court by order dated 21-8-91 granted ad interim injunction and issued notice to the opposite party. By Annexure-III the opposite parties Nos. 1 to 3 filed objection against the grant of temporary injunction. Similarly, some of the other defendants, viz., Defendants Nos. 21 to 23, 25, 28 to 30 and 32 filed objections by Annexures-IV to XI. 12. After filing of the objections, the case was pending for disposal. Meanwhile the petitioners by Annexure-XII petition prayed for an order to direct the seven persons mentioned in the schedule of the petition to produce themselves in the Court for cross-examination by the petitioners. In the said petition the petitioners, inter alia, stated that the opposite party, namely, the Trustees made some false statements in their objection. Therefore, it was necessary for the petitioners to test their veracity by cross-examining the deponents of affidavits appended to the objections. 13. The first to third opposite parties filed objection (Annexure-XIII) against the said prayer. They inter alia, stated that the petitioners obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction on 21-8-91 and more than a year had elapsed without any decision in the injunction matter. Besides, these opposite party also stated that the petitioners are guilty of laches and injunction being an equitable relief they are not entitled to an order as prayed for. In other words, if such prayer is allowed it will prolong the disposal of the injunction matter. The Annexure-XII application was filed in the month of November, about six months after filing of the objections. 14. I have heard both sides. Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were compelled to file the suit and to pray for injunction because of the illegal activities of the trustees. The Court granted ad interim injunction and issued notices. Some of the opposite party filed objections against the granting of injunction. Averments made in the objections, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, are contrary to the documents and therefore to test the veracity of the deponents it has become necessary for the petitioners to cross-examine them. Mr. Bhattacharyya however has submitted that all the opp. parties are not necessary for the petitioners to cross-examine them. Mr. Bhattacharyya however has submitted that all the opp. Bhattacharyya, are contrary to the documents and therefore to test the veracity of the deponents it has become necessary for the petitioners to cross-examine them. Mr. Bhattacharyya however has submitted that all the opp. parties are not necessary for the petitioners to cross-examine them. Mr. Bhattacharyya however has submitted that all the opp. parties are not necessary only Tripura Nath Barooah, Dipendra Narayan Das, Chandan Kumar Sengupta and Subir Das are necessary for cross-examination. Mr. Bhattacharyya has further contended that affidavit being not an evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, it cannot be treated as evidence and the Court cannot act upon it and therefore his prayer for an order to protect the interest of the petitioners is necessary. Mr. Bhattacharyyas next submission is that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners should be allowed to cross-examine the deponents by invoking the power under Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 15. Mr. J. N. Sarma, learned counsel appears on behalf of the first to third opposite parties and Mr. D. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appears on behalf of other opposite parties. They have disputed the submissions of Mr. Bhattacharyya and have submitted that the procedure for calling the deponents for cross-examination is not contemplated in an interlocutory matter like granting injunction under O. 39. The learned counsel have further submitted that an application under O. 39 for granting injunction should be disposed of on an affidavit or otherwise. 16. On the rival contentions of the parties, it is to be seen whether the impugned order dated 23-11-91 passed by the District Judge is sustainable or not. 17. The prayer for granting injunction is discretionary to be exercised on sound judicial principles. The very purpose of granting injunction is to preserve the status quo while the rights are being litigated and the onus is on the party seeking an order of injunction to showthat he needs injunction. In short, the application for injunction is to be decided in a summary manner, and therefore O. 39 envisages the disposal of a petition for injunction by an affidavit or otherwise. The Legislative intent is clear and apparent from the very wordings of the O. 39 that these matters should be disposed of as quickly as possible. Under O. 39, R. 1 empowers a Court to grant temporary injunction. The Legislative intent is clear and apparent from the very wordings of the O. 39 that these matters should be disposed of as quickly as possible. Under O. 39, R. 1 empowers a Court to grant temporary injunction. on affidavit or otherwise with the sole object that the matter may be disposed of without going through full length procedure of examination and cross-examination of witnesses, because if such a lengthy procedure is adopted the very purpose and object of granting injunction will be frustrated. The intention is patent from Rule 3-A of O. 9 which indicates that the matter should be disposed of as early as possible. Order 39, Rule l, therefore, prescribes a procedure for granting injunction on the basis of affidavit or otherwise. The word affidavit has been mentioned so that without going through the evidence, the Court may decide the matter of injunction pending disposal of the suit. Rights of the parties will be determined in the suit itself. 18. The injunction being an equitable relief the parties must come with a clean hand and he must do it without any delay. In the case in hand, the petitioners obtained an order of ad interim injunction on 21-8-91, thereafter objections were filed be various opposite party during the period from March to May 1992. By then, the petitioners came to know the stand of the opposite party and their contentions raised in their objections. But the petitioner did not take any steps for calling for the deponents to test the veracity of their statements. They remained silent for more than six months and thereafter filed the Annexure-XII application. By then, one year had already elapsed from the date of granting ad interim injunction. Normally the Court should not pass an ex parte temporary injunction except where it appears to the Court that the object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay, if notice is directed to be given to the opposite party and in that case before granting injunction the Court is required to record the reasons for departing from the normal procedure of issuing notices as envisages under Rule 3 of Order 39, CPC. The Rule 3A gives a protection to the defendants or to the persons against whom injunction is granted ex parte without notice. The Rule 3A gives a protection to the defendants or to the persons against whom injunction is granted ex parte without notice. The Court should make endeavour to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the date on which the injunction was granted. The object of inserting this provision is that ex parte injunction is one of the causes of delay in litigation, in case, where for some reasons the Court is unable to dispose of the same, the Court is to record the reason for such inability. 19. Rule 3A of Order 39 has been introduced by the 1976 amendment. The object of introduction of this Rule (sic) of injunction matter, because the party, which obtains injunction does not show any inclination to expedite the disposal of the suit. At the same time, the power to issue ex parte injunction has not been curtailed. 20. In Civil Revn. No. 30/80 : (reported in AIR 1985 NOC 207) (Gauhati) (Union of India v. Abdul Matlib) this Court held that examination of witnesses in an application for injunction is not at all necessary and such application can be disposed of on affidavit or other documents. 21. In the present case as mentioned hereinabove, the objections were filed from March to May by several opposite parties, but the petitioners did not take any steps. On the other hand, adjournments were sought for on various grounds. The application also does not say why such application could not be made immediately after receipt of the copy of the objections filed by the opposite party. This itself clearly indicates the gross laches on the part of the petitioners. Therefore, the District Judge found that the object of filing the Annexure-XII application at a belated stage is nothing but to avoid the early disposal of the injunction matter and the prayer was rejected. In my opinion, the District Judge was perfectly justified in coming to this finding. I do not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 23-11-92 to interfere with the decision in exercise of revisional power under S. 115 of the Code of Civil procedure. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost. The cost is assessed at Rs. 1000/- (One thousand). 22. Before parting with the records, I am constrained to observe that the suit was originally filed before the Asstt. District Judge. The Asstt. The petition is, therefore, dismissed with cost. The cost is assessed at Rs. 1000/- (One thousand). 22. Before parting with the records, I am constrained to observe that the suit was originally filed before the Asstt. District Judge. The Asstt. District Judge sent the records of the suit to the Court of District Judge as he was otherwise busy. This, in my opinion, was not proper on the part of the Asstt. District Judge. It is true that the District Judge on his own may call the case to his file but this was not the case here. It was the Asstt. District Judge who sent the case to District Judge. If the Asstt. District Judge was preoccupied on that day he should have adjourned the hearing till next date. I, therefore, direct the District Judge to send down the case to the Asstt. District Judge and he shall make all endeavour to dispose of the injunction matter as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. The parties herein, through their counsel, are directed to appear before the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat, on 30-3-93 to take a date. Petition dismissed.