1. There is no substance in this application. Learned counsel expects this Court to act as an automaton, and not like a person blessed with understanding, however small it may be. The question relates to the application of Rule 12, Order 16. A witness appeared before Court and was told to produce a document. He did not produce the document, and the excuse put forward by him in person was rejected by the Court. The Court thereupon proceeded to fine him Learned counsel desires me to hold that according to the terms of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court ought to have proceeded in this way. The Court ought to have told the witness:
Go out of the room, wait somewhere outside, so that I may be able to issue summons to you, and, after you disobey the summons, I may issue proclamation and attach your property. Then only can I take advantage of the provisions of Rule 12.
2. This is bad sense, and I am certain that it cannot be good law. All the previous directions of the Code to issue summons, then a proclamation, and then an order of attachment are all given to make sure that the person who was directed to produce a document had information of the direction. It may be possible that summons may not have reached him, or service may have been tampered with, or the proclamation may not have reached his ears, but when his property is attached he cannot possibly fail to learn what is expected of him by the Court. That is the reason why all these proceedings are directed in the case of an absent witness or a party from whom a Court has to obtain a document. 'When the witness or party is present, and the Court directs him by word of mouth to do a certain act and there cannot be the slightest mistake as to the witness or the party having received information of such direction, it will be merely making a travesty of procedure to insist upon the Court issuing a summons to a witness who is present followed by a proclamation to the witness who is still present, and then attaching his property to make the witness who is present before the Court understand that a document is wanted from him.
3. The procedure of the trial Court was not faulty, and I dismiss this application.