JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed under section 115 CPC against the order dated 31.8.1995 passed by learned Distt. & Sessions Judge, Merta in Ramjan & Anr. v. Mohan Lal & Ors., Civil Original Suit No. 71 of 1991 thereby passing the order commanding plaintiff-petitioners to bring the witnesses at their own, on the next date of hearing on 5.12.1995. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the legality and propriety of the impugned order. Admittedly, on the previous hearing i.e. 17.7.1995, as is evident from the certified copy of the order-sheet, though it is recorded that Presiding Officer i.e. Distt. Judge who was conducting the trial of the case, was on leave but, however, the judicial officer who has signed the order-sheet in place of Distt. Judge, without any authority, passed the order that since witnesses were absent without any reason or ground & since bailable warrants were issued which were not received either served or unserved, accordingly, it was ordered that bailable warrants may again be issued against the witnesses. As submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners Moola Ram and Jiwan Singh were summoned by bailable warrants but, on the subsequent hearing i.e. 31.8.1995, as evidenced from the order-sheet itself, neither Moola Ram nor Jiwan Singh were present before the Court. The Order-sheet does not reveal as to whether bailable warrants were issued against them, and if so, whether the same were received served or unserved and without assigning any reason, the learned Distt. Judge straightway ordered that since no witness from the side of plaintiff was present, therefore, it was ordered that petitioner should keep his witnesses present on the next date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while relying on the decision rendered in Smt. Uchhabkanwar v. Legal Representatives of Ram Swaroop & Ors., AIR 1995 (Raj.) 209 has submitted that, as per provision of Section 32 r/w 0. 16 & Rr. 10 & 12 CPC, both the witnesses were listed in the list of witnesses and PF & summonses were earlier filed and since the witnesses did not appear in compliance of the summonses so issued, accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred under sub-rule (3) of R. 10 of 0. 16 CPC, learned Distt. 16 & Rr. 10 & 12 CPC, both the witnesses were listed in the list of witnesses and PF & summonses were earlier filed and since the witnesses did not appear in compliance of the summonses so issued, accordingly, in exercise of the power conferred under sub-rule (3) of R. 10 of 0. 16 CPC, learned Distt. Judge ordered for issuance of bailable warrant and the same were issued and were not received either served or unserved and, therefore, there is legal mandate for the Distt. Judge to have either ordered for issuance of bailable warrants or, in case, if the plaintiff fulfilled all the terms and conditions or was ready & willing to fulfil the same, learned Distt. Judge ought to have issued bailable warrants, but the learned Distt. Judge arbitrarily overlooked the legal position and straight-way ordered the plaintiff to keep his witnesses present on the next date of hearing and hence this order is apparently illegal and, therefore, has been passed thereby committing material irregularity. 3. However, learned counsel for the respondents has tried his best to support this order. 4. Having gone through the provisions of 0. 16, Rr. 10 & 12 r/w Section 32 CPC, and also perusing the judgment referred to above in the case of Smt. Uchhabkanwar (supra), impugned order is apparently passed in flagrant disregard of the legal provisions and the same cannot be sustained. It is apparently illegal and the same amounts to commission of material irregularities resulting in miscarriage of justice and accordingly, it deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the impugned order dated 31.8.1995 is hereby set aside and the learned trial Court is directed to proceed further according to the provisions of 0. 16, Rr. 10 & 12, CPC, and under the principles laid down in case of Smt. Uchhabkanwar (supra). This petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.Revision disposed of. *******