JUDGMENT Harington, J. - In this case a rule was granted calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the order purporting to be made under sec. 137 of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside and the case re-opened for retrial after taking the evidence of the witnesses mentioned in the 7th, 8th and 9th paragraphs of the petition filed before the Court. It appears that in the course of proceedings against the Petitioner under sec. 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an application was made by him for the summoning of the sub-overseer of the Tangail Local Board. The order made on that petition by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was simply "file." It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that that is an improper way of dealing with a petition. There should be an order either one way or other, either granting the prayer of the petition or refusing it, To merely pass the order, "file," is to leave it open, and that is not the course which the Sub-Divisional Officer ought to have taken. Other witnesses had been summoned on the prayer of the Petitioner. They did not appear, and a petition was put in asking for fresh summonses against those persons. That petition was treated in the same way as the previous one. It was neither refused nor granted, but merely ordered to be filed. Other witnesses were present in Court on behalf of the Petitioner whom it is alleged the Sub-Divisional Officer refused to examine. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel, who showed cause against the rule, that it was not shown that the witnesses whom the Petitioner wished to examine were material witnesses in the case. All that we need say is that with regard to some at least of the witnesses whom the Petitioner desired to call they had been summoned; and they having neglected to obey the summons, the Petitioner had a right to call upon the Court to compel their attendance. That the Court has not done. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was made without his having taken the steps which the Petitioner was entitled to call upon him to take to obtain the attendance of those witnesses. That the Court has not done. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer was made without his having taken the steps which the Petitioner was entitled to call upon him to take to obtain the attendance of those witnesses. The order, therefore, ought to have been made, and the rule for setting it aside and remanding the case for trial after taking the evidence of the witnesses mentioned in the petition, must be made absolute.