Honble YADAV, J.–Heard. (2). Perused the order impugned dated 2.4.99 refusing the prayer of the tenant-defendant/revisionists to examine Rafeeq Mohd. and Madan Lal Singhvi, who were present in court as witnesses on their behalf on the ground that the names of these witnesses were not mentioned in the list of witnesses required to be filed under Order 16, sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 C.P.C. and no reason was disclosed in the application by the revisionists as to why they failed to include the names of the aforesaid witnesses in the list of witnesses to enable the court to give permission to examine these witnesses under sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC. (3). Although the present revision petition is posted today for admission but with the consent of learned counsel for the parties it is finally disposed of on merits. (4). It is urged by learned counsel for the revisionists Mr. K.L. Jasmatiya that there is no inner contradiction between sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 and Rule 1 A of Order 16 CPC. In fact sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order 16 confers a wider jurisdiction on the Court to cater a situation where the party has failed to name the witnesses in the list and yet the party unable to produce him or her on his own under Rule 1-A. He further submitted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 and Rule 1-A, therefore, operate in two different areas and cater two different situations. In support of his aforesaid argument he placed reliance on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Manga Ram vs. Brij Mohan (1). Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Manga Ram (supra) Mr. Jasmatiya vehemently contended that in the present facts and circumstances of the case when the aforesaid two witnesses were present before the trial court, the trial court ought to have examined them instead of refusing them to examine merely on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses. (5). The aforesaid argument of Mr. Jasmatiya is refuted by learned counsel Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta appearing for the land lord-Plaintiff-respondent. According to Mr. (5). The aforesaid argument of Mr. Jasmatiya is refuted by learned counsel Mr. Tribhuvan Gupta appearing for the land lord-Plaintiff-respondent. According to Mr. Gupta where the party wants the assistance of the Court to procure a witness on being summoned through the Court, it is obligatory on the party to file the list with the gist of evidence of witness in the Court as envisaged under sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 16 CPC and make an application as contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 1. However, he admitted that where the party would be in a position to produce its witnesses without the assistance of the Court, it can do so under Rule 1-A of Order 16 CPC irrespective of the fact whether the name of such witness is mentioned in the list or not. (6). The learned counsel Mr. Gupta invited my attention towards the finding recorded by the learned trial court against the clerk concerned, against whom the learned trial Judge has ordered a disciplinary action u/Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1958 (in short CCA Rules 1958) for issuing summons without any judicial order of the Court. He urged that if this finding is varied or cancelled by this Court, it will encourage indiscipline and unfair practice in subordinate courts which tantamount polluting the purity of administration. (7). The controversy involved in the present revision petition is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Manga Ram (supra), which has been followed in the case of Sanwala Ram vs. Firm Agarwal Agro Agencies, Bhinmal reported in (2). In these circumstances, when the afore said two witnesses were present in court, the learned trial court should not have refused to examine them merely on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the list. (8). In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Manga Ram (supra), I need not refer to the decisions of this Court or other High Courts taking a little different view. (9). (8). In view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Manga Ram (supra), I need not refer to the decisions of this Court or other High Courts taking a little different view. (9). As regards the finding of learned trial Judge ordering disciplinary action under Rule 17 of CCA rules against the clerk concerned, who issued summons to the witnesses without any order of the court, it is observed that no one should be allowed to pollute the fountain of justice by any act or omission and if one commits any such act or omission one must be taken to task in accordance with law. Issuing summons in absence of any order of the Court is a serious matter, which tant- amounts interfering in the administration of justice and as such the learned trial court has committed no jurisdictional error in passing an order to proceed against the clerk concerned under Rule 17 of CCA Rules 1958 in accordance with law. (10). With the aforesaid observation this revision petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 2.4.99 is hereby set aside. The defendant shall keep ready to examine the aforesaid two witnesses namely Rafeeq Mohd. and Madan Lal Singhvi on payment of costs of Rs. 2200/-. It is made clear that if the defendant revisionists fail to deposit the aforesaid costs within ten days from today, they shall not be allowed to examine the two witnesses named above. The payment of Rs. 2200/- as costs within the stipulated period is a condition precedent to compensate the plaintiff for the inconvenience suffered by him. (11). It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that tomorrow i.e. 30.4.99 is the date fixed before the learned trial court in the present case. The learned trial court is to fix another date for the payment of costs and also for the evidence of tenant-defendant-revisionists. The tenant-defendant- revisionists shall produce their witnesses on the date so fixed by the learned trial court and shall not ask for any further adjournment.