Honble YADAV, J. — I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.l and 2. (2). It is admitted by learned counsel for the revisionist as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties No.l and 2 that the suit proceeded ex parte against the opposite party No.3- Ram Singh. Therefore, Ram Singh is not required to be served. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant revision is heard and decided on merit at admission stage. (3). The thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the revisionist before me is that the subordinate court has no jurisdiction to refuse to summon the attendance of the witness by his order dated 16.1.1995, inasmuch as, he has ample jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure not only to issue a non bailable warrant of his arrest but also to attach and sell his property and could have impose a fine on him, not exceeding Rs.500/-. According to learned counsel for the revisionist it is not sufficient to hold that since there is no report about the service of ndn-bailable warrant upon the witness, therefore, the evidence of the witness has to be closed. (4). In reply to the aforesaid argument, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 and 2 urged before me that Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not attracted in the present case, in as much as, it applies only if the subordinate court would have issued a summon for a witness in matters relating to delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts and the discovery, inspection,production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence. The alternative argument of learned counsel appearing , for Respondents is that under Section 32, the word "may" is indicative that the sub-ordinate court, who has issued non-bailable warrant, was not made bound to take other measures to compel the attendance of the witness in his court. (5). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar before me. (5). I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised at the Bar before me. In my considered opinion, the instant case is covered under sub-section (b) of Section 30, which provides as under: — "(b) Issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid;" It would be expedient in the interest of justice to re- produce Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure also: 32. Penalty for default. - The Court may compel the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under-Section 30 and for that purpose may — (a) issue a warrant for his arrest; (b) attach and sell his property ; (c) impose a fine upon him not exceeding five hundred rupees ; (d) order him to furnish security for his appearance and in default commit him to the civil prison." A conjoint reading of sub-section (b) of Section 30 and Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure leads towards an irresistible conclusion that once the court makes up its mind to summon a witness to give evidence, at subsequent stage, such court cannot express its inability to summon the witness, on the ground that some of the measures to be taken by the Court, as contemplated under Section 32 of the Code arc not possible. In my humble opinion, once the court makes up its mind to summon a witness, he should always be compelled to attend the court to give evidence, taking all measures, as contemplated under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (6). In the present case, it is true that the subordinate court has issued non-bailable warrant compelling the attendance of the witness but no step has been taken to attach and sell his property or commit him to the civil prison or to impose fine, upto five hundred rupees. Further, in order to maintain confidence of the litigants, a witness who is sought to be add ced before the court and once the court, after being satisfied, issued summons for his attendance; the court should not stay its hands at the choice of the witness to attend or not to attend the court to give evidence. (7). Further, in order to maintain confidence of the litigants, a witness who is sought to be add ced before the court and once the court, after being satisfied, issued summons for his attendance; the court should not stay its hands at the choice of the witness to attend or not to attend the court to give evidence. (7). The second argument of learned counsel appearing for respondents No.l and 2 is that the word "may" under Section 32 of the Code is directory and not mandatory. According to learned counsel appearing for opposite parties No.l and 2, it is not mandatory for the subordinate court to take all the measures provided under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As a matter of fact, according to learned counsel, it is the discretion of the court to take any one of the measures and may refuse to take further measures, as contemplated under Section 32 of the Code. (8). I am unable to accept the aforesaid argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel , for Respondents No.l and 2. It must be taken to be settled principle or rule of interpretation that wherever the word "may" is used in respect of courts, it always mean "shall". Out of respect, the Legislature has developed a convention to use the word "may" in place of "shall." Therefore the word "may" used under Section 32 of the Code is not directory, as contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties. In my considered opinion, the word "may" used under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure is mandatory. (9). At the end of his arguments,- learned counsel appearing for opposite parties No.l and 2 invited my attention to Order XVI rules 10 and 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provide a detailed procedure for summoning of witnesses. This Order XVI rule 10 and 12 are to be read with Section 32 of the Code. (10). As a matter of fact, Section 32 gives a right to the Judicial Officer to summon a witness and Order XVI rules 10 and 12 of the Code provide a procedure to secure attendance of the witness. (11). This Order XVI rule 10 and 12 are to be read with Section 32 of the Code. (10). As a matter of fact, Section 32 gives a right to the Judicial Officer to summon a witness and Order XVI rules 10 and 12 of the Code provide a procedure to secure attendance of the witness. (11). In view of the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I am fully satisfied that learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.2 Jodhpur, has committed material irregularity in not compelling the attendance of the witness within the meaning of section 32 read with rules 10 and 12 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. (12). As a result of aforesaid discussion, the order and judgment passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.2, Jodhpur, dated 16.1.1995 is hereby set aside and the instant revision petition is allowed, at admission stage, with a direction to learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), No.2, Jodhpur, to compel the attendance of the witness, as contemplated under section 32 read with rules 10 and 12 of Order XVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.