JUDGMENT Sankaran Nair, J. 1. In this case the petitioner was summoned to appear as a witness by the Alatur Munsif. Such summons cannot be issued before the party applying for the summons deposits a certain sum of money in Court under Section 160 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1832). It was so deposited. The witness attended. His evidence was not taken and he had to attend again. The sum deposited in Court and paid to him (i.e.,) Rs. 9-140 being insufficient for his expenses he claimed an additional sum of Rs. 100-2-0 and prayed for an order directing the plaintiff in that suit to pay him that amount. The Munsif allowed " this application on the 13r,h June. The witness applied under Section 235, Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), to send this order for execution to the Munsifs Court at Palghat. He stated therein that the plaintiff had no property within the jurisdiction of the Alatur Munsif but he had his property only within the jurisdiction of the Palghat Munsif and he prayed, therefore, that to realise this amount an order might be passer directing "that the bill be sent" to Palghat. It was accordingly ordered "on the 14th September. The Palghat Munsif now rejects the application on the ground that there was no order directing payment and for attachment and sale in default of payment. The order of the 13th June is, in my opinion, an order for payment and the order of the 14th September taken with the application is clearly an order that such sum may be levied by attachment and sale of the property of the plaintiff within the jurisdiction of the Palghat Munsif. The Munsif also states that summons was not obtained by this petitioner. The summons was obtained by the Receiver who represented for this purpose the parties to the suit and the property of which the plaintiff was the Receiver is the property out of which this amount is to be realised. 2. Another objection taken is that this is not a matter for interference under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882). I am of opinion that it is, as the law-leaves no course open for the Judge to follow on the admitted facts of the case. He seems to have thought that he had no power. Another objection taken is that this is not a matter for interference under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882). I am of opinion that it is, as the law-leaves no course open for the Judge to follow on the admitted facts of the case. He seems to have thought that he had no power. I accordingly reverse the order, direct the Munsif to restore the petitioners application to his file and pass fresh orders with reference to the above observations. The petitioner is entitled to the costs of this petition. The costs in the lower Court will abide the result.