Short Note : In each of the three connected cases separate applications for examining different witnesses on commission were filed on behalf of Union of India. The witnesses sought to be examined are Station Masters and Chief Goods Clerks of different stations viz. Changancheri, Kottayam (Kerala), Hubli Dharvar (Mysore State), Allahabad and New Delhi. The Station Masters and the Chief Goods Clerks of different Stations are to be examined in different cases and not that all of the aforesaid persons rave to be examined in each case. The learned District Judge by a common order, passed on 13-11-1975, rejected the applications, filed on behalf of Union of India for examining the respective witnesses in the respective Civil Suits on commission. This revision is directed against that order. Held : Learned counsel vehemently argued and contended that the witnesses being residents of places which are more than 200 miles away from Hoshangabad could not be compelled to come to give their evidence and the Court below had no option but to issue the commission. He further urged that the trial Judge could not have, at this stage, considered the relevance or otherwise of the evidence of the witnesses who are sought to be examined on commission. He also argued that merely because the witnesses were Railway employees and in the service of the petitioner Union of India, is no ground to refuse the commission. He attacked the impugned order, as being wholly illegal. 2. Learned District Judge in his impugned order has referred to the facts and circumstances of the case. The allegation of the plaintiff was that the defendant firm in collusion with the Railway authorities has cheated the Bank. The goods are said to have been delivered by the railways on the indemnity bond. On a consideration of these facts in detail he appears to be of the view of that the witness who are sought to be examined by the Union of India are wholly irrelevant. No doubt there appears to be some substance in the observations made in this behalf by the learned District Judge and one is left to guess as to what in fact is persuading the Union of India to examine these witnesses. 3. No doubt there appears to be some substance in the observations made in this behalf by the learned District Judge and one is left to guess as to what in fact is persuading the Union of India to examine these witnesses. 3. Be that as it may, the order refusing to examine the witnesses on commission can be upheld even on the ground that the petitioner in none of these cases named the Station Master or the Chief Goods Clerk but has merely given the designation. In the application for examining them, as witnesses there is no reference of any document which may be required to be got produced by these witnesses. In my opinion it was incumbent on the petitioner to have given out the names of the persons whom they intended to examine as witnesses instead of describing them merely by designations which obviously would result in confusion at most of the occasions. The very fact that the defendant Union of India could not give out the names of those witnesses in itself is indicative that the application for issuance of commission was frivolous and vexatious. It was not disputed that in case it is found that the issuance of commission to examine the witnesses will be an abuse of process, the Court has a power to refuse to issue the commission. In the present case if the prayer of the petitioner is allowed it will be a clear abuse of the process of the Court. For this reason I need not go into the other reasons as have been given by the learned District Judge while rejecting the application of the petitioner for issuance of a commission for examining the different witnesses. Revision dismissed.