JUDGMENT : 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. 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 required for cross-examination. In addition to that, certain other factual aspects were also raised and finally sought for the prayer which is reproduced herein below: "It is therefore prayed that Your Honour would be graciously pleased to call Mr. Ashish Singh, the deponent of the Written Objection and the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 for their cross-examination under the provision of Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC for the ends of justice; And Your Honour would be pleased to pass such other appropriate order in the light of the fact, where the OP Nos. Ashish Singh, the deponent of the Written Objection and the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 for their cross-examination under the provision of Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC for the ends of justice; And Your Honour would be pleased to pass such other appropriate order in the light of the fact, where the OP Nos. 2, 3 and the Directors of O.P. No. 1 have been continuously, willfully, deliberately and flagrantly disobeying the spirit of the Order dated 29.11.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court And For this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray." 5. The learned court below vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 allowed the said application by holding as follows: "I have considered the ground mentioned in the petition, particularly considering the position that the copy of the objection supplied by the opposite party is without identification of the deponent whereas the main copy of objection supplied to court has been shown to be sworn and executed at Mumbai where the deponent was indentified, and as the written objection is without any authority letter, which may be issued in favour of the deponent Ashish Singh, this court is inclined to allow the petition. Accordingly petition is allowed. Fixing 03.03.2017 for cross." 6. Mr. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel submits that the learned court below was wrong in invoking the jurisdiction under Order 19, Rule 2 inasmuch as an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is to be decided on affidavit or otherwise. The said affidavit supporting the pleading as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court cannot be termed to be evidence within the purview of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If the said affidavit is not evidence then the question of cross-examination of the deponent Ashish Singh cannot be ordered by the learned court below. The issue so raised by plaintiffs/respondents is an issue to be decided in the main suit by leading evidence and application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is to be decided on the basis of the affidavit and that does not mean that the said affidavit is to be treated as a piece of evidence in order to decide the said application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. Reverting to the provision under Order 39, Rule 3(A) of the CPC, Mr. Choudhury submits that an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC is to be decided within 30 days and if the same is to be followed then the question of adducing any evidence other than the affidavit cannot be taken into consideration. In support of the said submission, Mr. Choudhury relies Rajib Barooah & Anr. Vs Hemendra Prasad Barooah & Ors, reported in 1993 (1) GLR 247. It is the court to direct any fact to be proved by means of evidence tendered on affidavit and only pursuant thereto the said deponent can be called for cross-examination and for that purpose Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC cannot be invoked in an urgent matter to cross-examine the deponent of each and every affidavit furnished in support of an application filed under the CPC. In support of his submission Mr. Choudhury relies Sri Ramji Singh Vs M/S Asmi Commercial Private Limited & Ors. reported in 2017 (5) GLT 601. Thus, Mr. Choudhury submits that the learned court below wrongly applied its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order and the same is liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned counsel for respondents submits that from the petition filed under Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC it is clear and apparent as to why the cross-examination of the deponent Ashish Singh is required. It is mandatory on the part of a deponent representing a company to submit the resolution of the Board of Directors showing thereby the act of authorizing the said deponent to act and represent on behalf of the said company. In the present case in hand there is no mention as to the said resolution of the Board of Directors nor any document produced in support of the said fact. In support of the said contention Mr. Roy relies State Bank of Travancore Vs Kingston Computers India Private Limited, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524 . He also submits that the purpose of cross-examination within the parameters of Order 19, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is to challenge the allegation made in the affidavit. In support of the said contention Mr. Roy relies State Bank of Travancore Vs Kingston Computers India Private Limited, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524 . He also submits that the purpose of cross-examination within the parameters of Order 19, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC is to challenge the allegation made in the affidavit. It is further submitted that Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC specifically stipulates that the facts pleaded in the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC may be proved by affidavit evidence. However, the word "otherwise" in the said Rule 1 of Order 39 of the CPC gives ample power to the Court to call the deponent to face the cross-examination. In support of the said submission Mr. Roy relies Ranjit Kumar Malo Das Munindra Malo Das Vs S. Kataki, reported in 1994 I GLR 395. Rule 16 of the Civil Rules and Orders of the Gauhati High Court stipulates that all petitions requiring judicial investigation or determination must be filed with an affidavit in support thereof and it must be verified in the manner prescribed by Order 6, Rule 15 of the CPC. In clear violation of the said Rules, petitioners more specifically, the deponent Ashish Singh representing the present defendant/petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 filed affidavit supporting the fact pleaded in the written objection but without any verification and the same does not comply with the Rule 16 of Civil Rules and Orders of Gauhati High Court as such the affidavit in support of the fact in written objection has no value at all inasmuch as the fact had no factual foundation. Replying to the contention of Mr. Choudhury that affidavit is not at all evidence within the meaning of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, he submits that the Court has the power to direct the deponent to be available thereby giving an opportunity to the other side to cross-examine him and the said piece of cross-examination can very well be relied. In support of his contention Mr. Roy relies Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 . Finally the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is within the jurisdiction under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and the learned court below passed the same correctly and requires no interference. 8. Roy relies Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 . Finally the learned counsel submits that the impugned order is within the jurisdiction under Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and the learned court below passed the same correctly and requires no interference. 8. Considered the submission of the learned counsel. Order 19, Rule 1 of the CPC authorises the Court at any time for sufficient reasons to order for particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit. However, if either party bonafide desires the production of witness for cross-examination, such witness can be produced and in such a situation an order shall not be made authorizing the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit. Rule 2 of Order 19 of the CPC stipulates that upon any application, evidence may be given by affidavit but the Court may at the instance of either party order the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. Now whether an affidavit as required under Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC while verification of pleadings can be treated as evidence within the scope of "evidence" under Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act as because Order 19 Rule 2 of the CPC provides for cross-examination which term has its origin in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "31. It is a settled legal proposition that an affidavit is not "evidence" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the "Evidence Act"). Affidavits are, therefore, not included within the purview of the definition of "evidence" as has been given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act, and the same can be used as "evidence" only if, for sufficient reasons, the court passes an order under Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the "CPC"). Thus, the filing of an affidavit of one's own statement, in one's own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation. Thus, the filing of an affidavit of one's own statement, in one's own favour, cannot be regarded as sufficient evidence for any court or tribunal, on the basis of which it can come to a conclusion as regards a particular fact situation. (Vide: Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan and Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani.)" Thus, from the said ratio it can be concluded that affidavit can be used as evidence only if for sufficient reason, the Court passes an order under Order 19 of the CPC to that effect. 10. In Ramesh Kumar Vs Kesho Ram, reported in 1992 supp. (2) SCC 623, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the scope of the application of the provisions of Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC in a rent control matter while dealing the pleading of subsequent events which has the approval in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra). Therein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: "9. .......................The Court may also treat any affidavit filed in support of the pleadings itself as one under the said provision and call upon the opposite side to traverse it. The court, if it finds that having regard to the nature of the allegations, it is necessary to record oral evidence tested by oral cross-examination, may have recourse to that procedure." It is held that the affidavit in order to be evidence within the purview of Section 3 of the Evidence Act, the court must pass an order under Order 19 of the CPC. Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 stipulates that the order in which witnesses are produced and examined shall be regulated by the law and practice for the time being relating to civil and criminal procedure respectively and in the absence of any such law by the discretion of the court. 11. Order 19 of the CPC, Rule 2 authorizes the power of the court to order attendance of the deponent in an affidavit for cross-examination. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. Kesho Ram (supra) it was held that the court may treat any affidavit filed in support of the pleadings itself and after traversal by the opposite side the court has the discretion to ask any of the parties to file fresh affidavit with respect to any fact or facts under Order 19 Rule 1 of the CPC. Kesho Ram (supra) it was held that the court may treat any affidavit filed in support of the pleadings itself and after traversal by the opposite side the court has the discretion to ask any of the parties to file fresh affidavit with respect to any fact or facts under Order 19 Rule 1 of the CPC. The traversal though supported by affidavit, that itself cannot form the affidavit as envisaged under Order 19 of the CPC because an affidavit does not fall within the definition of "evidence" under the Evidence Act. But only after the court directs any of the parties to the proceeding to prove a fact by way of an affidavit then only it complies the provision of Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC which stipulates the procedure for recording of evidence. After submission of the affidavit subsequent to the order of the court, then only the court at the instance of either party orders the attendance for cross-examination of the deponent. If no such application is forthcoming from either party, the court will consider the fact so directed to be proved by affidavit unless disproved its veracity by cross-examination of the deponent. 12. Rule 1 of Order 19 of the CPC authorizes the court that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit and the said affidavit of any deponent may be read at the hearing. Order 2 of Rule 19 CPC empowers the court to order attendance of the deponent of such affidavit at the instance of either party for cross-examination. Thus, keeping in view the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, read with Section 135 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Order 18, Rule 4 and Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC there must be a separate affidavit supporting a particular fact or facts placed on record other than the one supporting the pleadings of either party to a proceeding in compliance of Order 6 Rule 15 of the CPC for invoking the jurisdiction by the court under Order 19 of the CPC. 13. The aforesaid view was taken by the Hon'ble Justice Suman Shyam in Kandarpa Pathak & Anr. Vs. Mono Kanta Baruah & Ors., reported in 2016 (4) GLT 1124 which is reproduced herein below: "10. 13. The aforesaid view was taken by the Hon'ble Justice Suman Shyam in Kandarpa Pathak & Anr. Vs. Mono Kanta Baruah & Ors., reported in 2016 (4) GLT 1124 which is reproduced herein below: "10. A bare reading of Order XIX Rule 2 leaves no manner of doubt that the said provision can be invoked when the Court requires any particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit and such evidence is tendered by way of affidavit, than the Court can order, at the instance of either party, the presence of the deponent for cross-examination. What, therefore, follows is that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Order XIX Rule 2, there must be a proceeding where any fact or facts are being sought to be proved by affidavit and in deference to the said purpose, evidence is given by either party, by affidavit." 14. In Sri Ramji Singh Vs. M/s. Asmi Commercials Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2017 (5) GLT 601, Hon'ble Justice Kalyan Rai Surana in a similar issue held as follows: "15. Moreover, in the present case, not only the court did not require any point to be proved by affidavit under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC, also the deponent appearing on behalf of the respondent was not asked to give evidence by affidavit as required under Order XIX Rule 2(1) CPC. Therefore, following the ratio of case of Kandarpa Pathak (supra), this Court is not inclined to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit filed in support of written objection to the petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 is to be treated as an 'evidence' because under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1, it is the burden of the petitioner to demonstrate that his plea is sustainable for grant of injunction." 15. In the present case in hand, the respondent as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 360/2004 along with a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014 in the said Title Suit No. 360/2004. In the present case in hand, the respondent as the plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 360/2004 along with a petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC which was registered as Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014 in the said Title Suit No. 360/2004. Against the pleadings made in the said petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC the present petitioners who are defendants in the said suit filed the joint written objection and in order to support the pleadings made therein an affidavit was sworn by the deponent Ashish Singh. An application was filed under Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC by respondents/plaintiffs disputing the identity of the said deponent and other particulars regarding the authority of the said deponent. The learned court below straightway passed the impugned order directing the said deponent to appear before the learned court below and to face the cross-examination sought for by respondents/plaintiffs. If we consider Order 18, Rule 4 of CPC and in order to appreciate the said cross-examination in disposing of the petition under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC of the deponent the same must be compatible with respect to the term "evidence" within the ambit and scope of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The learned court below misdirected itself and without directing the said deponent Ashish Singh to file the affidavit proving the facts so disputed by respondents/plaintiffs asked the deponent to be present for cross-examination. 16. Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC authorizes the court to pass an order of temporary injunction if the court is satisfied with respect to the causes stipulated in the said provision are proved by an affidavit or otherwise. Accordingly, if the pleadings are supported by affidavit that is sufficient in order to decide the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. However, if any of the parties to the said proceeding raises objection with respect to any of the fact or facts in the pleadings supported by an affidavit, that particular disputed fact can be proved "otherwise". 17. The question of proving the fact must be in a judicial proceeding requires compliance of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, if any of the parties to the said proceeding raises objection with respect to any of the fact or facts in the pleadings supported by an affidavit, that particular disputed fact can be proved "otherwise". 17. The question of proving the fact must be in a judicial proceeding requires compliance of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. So it is incumbent on the part of the court to direct the deponent of the affidavit supporting the pleadings to prove the said particular fact or facts by filing an affidavit in compliance of the provision of Order 18, Rule 4 of the CPC. If the said deponent is wanted for cross-examination, the adverse party is to take necessary steps before the court to get an order under Order 19, Rule 2. The act of directing to prove a particular fact by the deponent by an affidavit is under Order 19, Rule 1 of the CPC and direction issued for appearance of the deponent to face cross-examination is under Order 19, Rule 2 of the CPC. If the court decides an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC by applying Order 19, Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC the same would amount rendering a decision by the court within the meaning of the term "otherwise". The said conclusion has the support from the ratio held in Rajeswar Rabha Vs. Khagen Chandra Kalita & Ors. reported in 1992 I GLR 334 while deciding a similar issue as the one in the present petition held as follows: "10. The interim injunction in some case, may have the effect of rendering full relief for which the suit is instituted. Provisions of Order 39 Rule 1 contemplates that case for interim injunction is to be proved by affidavit or otherwise. The expression 'or otherwise' means that allegations made in the application can be proved not only by affidavit but also by documentary and oral evidence. As such, it cannot be said that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 can be decided only on the basis of the statements made in affidavit..............". 18. The expression 'or otherwise' means that allegations made in the application can be proved not only by affidavit but also by documentary and oral evidence. As such, it cannot be said that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 can be decided only on the basis of the statements made in affidavit..............". 18. From the discussion made herein above, in my considered opinion the impugned order passed by the learned court below directing the deponent Ashish Singh to appear on 03.03.2017 for cross-examination appears to be without jurisdiction and without following due requirements as prescribed under the provision of Order 19 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC and as such the same is set aside. 19. The learned court below shall accordingly decide the petition No. 3189 dated 07.08.2015 in Misc (J) Case No. 404/2014 arising out of Title Suit No. 360/2004 pending in the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati afresh keeping in view the observations made in this order. 20. This revision petition accordingly succeeds. 21. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.