1. We are unable to sustain the order appealed against. The Subordinate Judge does not say that the time between the 22nd March and the 4th April would ordinarily not be sufficient for serving summonses on the witnesses. He says: 'No vigilant steps were taken by the petitioner to secure the attendance of his witnesses.' This is vague, and we are not clear as to what he means. He does not say there was any defect in the summonses. The return of the summonses unserved for want of jurisdiction may have been due to a mistake on the part of the Court in not sending them to the proper authority for service. We may observe that in a case of this sort, the lower Court ought to send up the summonses for the inspection of this Court. We set aside the order and direct the petition to be restored to the file and disposed of afresh according to law. The costs of this appeal will abide the result.