JUDGMENT This revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.5.90 passed by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhind, in Sessions Trial No. 147/84. The brief facts of the case are that a case under sections 147, 148, 325, 307, 325/149 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code was pending against the non-applicants/respondents No. 2 to 9. Applicants Jitendra, Mohkam and Narendra had received simple and grevious injuries. They were. medically examined by one Dr. P .C. Saxena. Lateron, the aforesaid three persons were sent for X-ray examination and the X-ray was conducted by one Dr. Kulshrestha. They were found to have suffered fractures when the evidence was being recorded in the aforesaid sessions case, Dr. Kulshrestha had gone out side the country, but before the case could be concluded Dr. Kulshrestha had come back from out side the country. On 13.9.89 the prosecution moved an application u/s 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that Dr. Kulshrestha was now available having returned back and, therefore, in the interests of justice Dr. Kulshrestha should be summoned and examined. That application was accepted by the Court on payment of Rs. 50/- which was deposited and Dr. Kulshrestha was summoned by the Court, but on 17.5.90 the Court passed an order for closing the prosecution evidence on the ground that several opportunities were given to the prosecution for producing Dr. Kulshrestha and there was no likelihood of Dr. Kulshrestha's appearance in the case. The trial was pending since 1984 and on 17.5.90 refusing the request of the prosecution to summon Dr. Kulshrestha, the Court has closed the prosecution evidence. Being aggrieved by the said order the present revision has been filed. On the facts of the case there cannot be two opinion that the evidence of Dr. Kulshrestha was necessary. He was an important witness in the prosecution case and without his examination the prosecution could not have concluded its evidence. Once the Court had summoned Dr. Kulshrestha it was clear that the Court considered him to be an important witness and if Dr. Kulshreshtha did not attend the Court inspite of service then the Court could have adopted coersive method to secure his presence. The failure of Dr. Kulshrestha to appear before the Court inspite of summon does not entitle him to ignore Court's order and his presence should have been forced by adopting coersive method. Kulshreshtha did not attend the Court inspite of service then the Court could have adopted coersive method to secure his presence. The failure of Dr. Kulshrestha to appear before the Court inspite of summon does not entitle him to ignore Court's order and his presence should have been forced by adopting coersive method. The order of the Addl. Sessions Judge in closing the prosecution evidence because one of the important witnesses did not respond to the summon, was an erroneous approach. The Courts are not meant to dispose of a case but to decide it and if any witness was not showing respect to the Court's order then his presence should have been forced. The prosecution is not to suffer simply because the Court was in hot haste to decide the case. In the present set of facts I find that an important sessions case will suffer because of this erroneous approach. The revision is allowed, the order of the trial Court in closing the prosecution evidence is set aside. The case is remanded back to the Court concerned for compelling the attendance of the witness, if so desired by the prosecution and deciding it afresh.