KULKARNI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a revision by the Tahsildar, Basavanabagewadi, Bijapur District, against the order dated 22-2 1984 passed by the Munsiff, Basavanabagewad. in O. S. No. 105 of 1982 issuing proclamation and arrest warrant against the Tahsildar who was summoned as a witness to produce the document. ( 2 ) THE case was posted on 22-2-1984 for the appearance of the witness who bad been summoned to produce the documents. As can be seen from the order sheet, the witness Tahsildar had taken many adjournments to search for the documents and produce the same. Even on 22-2-1984 the a. G. P. submitted in the Munsiff Court that the witness was searching for the documents and still they wore not available. The Lower Court thought that no representation had been made either by the witness personally or by any other persons. At that stage, the defendant's Counsel Sri m.. P. appears to have filed an application under Order 16 Rule 10 C. P. G. requesting the Court to issue proclamation and arrest warrant against the Tahsildar. He heard the parties and perused the order sheet and the affidavit filed by the defendant. The Lower Court after perusing the order sheet and the affidavit filed by the defendant and in view of the Petition and the memo filed by the witness Tahsildar on 23 1-1984 and 2-1-1984 and finding that the witness was absent, ordered the issue of proclamation and the arrest warrant. ( 3 ) LOOKING to the things that have happened in the Court below, it appears that the Tahsildar was wrong in not appearing in the Court and in not submitting that the documents though searched were not available The majesty of the law and the dignity of the Court require that the witness however highly placed he may be, should appear in the Court in order to maintain the decorum of the Court and submit that the documents which had been summoned. were searched and they were not available. It is this conduct of the witness Tahsildar that appears to have pricked the conscience of the Court. were searched and they were not available. It is this conduct of the witness Tahsildar that appears to have pricked the conscience of the Court. ( 4 ) ORDER 16 Rule 10 (2) and (3) C. P. C. reads as : " (2) Where the Court sees reason to believe that such evidence or production is material, and that such person has, without lawful excuse, failed to attend or to produce the document in compliance with such summons or has intentionally avoided service, it may issue a proclamation requiring him to attend to give evidence or to produce the document at a time and place to be named therein ; and a copy of such proclamation shall be affixed on the outer door or other conspicuous part of the house in which he ordinarily resides. (3) In lieu of or at the time of issuing such proclamation, or at any time afterwards, the Court may in its discretion, issue a warrant, either with or without bail, for the arrest of such person, and may make an order for the attachment of his property to such amount as it thinks fit, not exceeding the amount of the costs of attachment and of any fine which may be imposed under rule 12 : provided that no Court of Small Causes shall make an order for the attachment of immoveable property. " therefore before the Court proceeds to issue proclamation or the arrest warrant, it must be satisfied that the witness has without lawful excuse failed to produce the document in compliance with the summons. In the alternative the Court must find that be has intentionally avoided the service. If these conditions which are essential as per the said Sub rules (2) and (3) are not satisfied, then the Court would not be justified in issuing the proclamation or the arrest warrant. A reading of the said order between the lines does not show that the Court was satisfied that the witness had failed to produce the document without lawful excuse. Therefore the Court, however offended it might feel by the non-appearance of the witness Tahsildar, ought not to have hastened to issue the proclamation or the arrest warrant as the said ingredient was not satisfied. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER it appears that on 28-2-1984 the Lower Court heard the A. G. P. and M.. P. for the defendant. Therefore the Court, however offended it might feel by the non-appearance of the witness Tahsildar, ought not to have hastened to issue the proclamation or the arrest warrant as the said ingredient was not satisfied. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER it appears that on 28-2-1984 the Lower Court heard the A. G. P. and M.. P. for the defendant. The order dated 28-2-1984 shows that the letter addressed by the witness to the Court on 23-1-1984 stating that the records were not available, was received by the Court. The order passed by the Court on 28-2-1984 goes to show that the Tahsildar did not repose any trust in the government Advocate and had engaged a private Counsel. This conduct of the Tahsildar naturally pricked the Munsiff. Thus, it appears to me, that the conduct of the Tahsildar in not appearing before the Court- and in not submitting that the documents though searched were not available and further his conduct in not reposing confidence in the Government Pleader and in engaging another private Counsel, appear to have pricked the conscience of the Court. This attitude of the Tahsildar witness is highly unbecoming and needs to be deprecated. ( 6 ) WHATEVER it is, the order passed by the Court below issuing the proclamation and the arrest warrant, is set aside. The revision is allowed.