JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision has been filed against the impugned order of the trial court dated 11.7.2001 by which the application of the petitioner to summon witness, viz., Dr. Randhava along with the record of one patient Shri Roshanlal who had been insured with the petitioner Insurance Company, under Order 16 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Code has been rejected. 2. The application has been rejected by the learned trial court on the ground that liberty had been given to the present revisionist that it can bring all witnesses for examination but in spite of several opportunities it could not examine Dr. Randhava. The difficulty expressed by the present revisionist Corporation had been that the said Dr. Randhava is not willing to come to depose before the Court unless he receives summons from the Court. 3. In fact calling a witness or issuing any process to the witness, the court has a power under the provisions of Order 16 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code to examine the relevancy of the evidence of the said witness and if it comes to conclusion that the witness is not relevant at all, the court may refuse to summon the witness. In the instant case it has not been submitted before the court that evidence of that witness was irrelevant to determine the controversy. What had prevailed before the trial court that the Court insisted that petitioner Corporation must produce the witness of his own and as sufficient opportunities had been given to the petitioner-Corporation to bring that witness of his own and the doctor refused to come unless he receives the summons the application has been rejected. 4. This issue has been considered by the courts time and again and as the impugned order runs counter to the law laid down by this Court from time to time particularly in Smt. Uchhab Kanwar v. L.Rs. of Ramswaroop & Ors., 1995(2) RRR 665 Raj. : 1995(1) RLW 106 ; Pukh Raj v. Gram Panchayat Sanchore, 1978 WLN (UC) 55; and Ramjan & Anr. v. Mohan Lal & ors., 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 143, wherein it has been held that Section 132 of the Code and the provisions of Order 16 Rules 10 and 12 empowers the Court to compel the presence of the witnesses taking all measures as contemplated therein. v. Mohan Lal & ors., 1998 DNJ (Raj.) 143, wherein it has been held that Section 132 of the Code and the provisions of Order 16 Rules 10 and 12 empowers the Court to compel the presence of the witnesses taking all measures as contemplated therein. The competence of the Court also includes issuance of non-bailable warrant compelling the attendance of the witnesses; even attaching and sale of property or commit him to civil prison or impose fine up to the prescribed limit if the presence of such witness is required in the interest of justice. 5. A similar view has been taken by this Court while deciding S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 1223/2001, Mahendra Singh v. Resident Engineer, Rajasthan State Bridge & Construction, decided on 12.4.2002 and set aside the order passed by the learned trial Court refusing to summon a witness. 6. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that it was the solemn duty of the Court to issue summons to the said witness and if inspite of service of summons he does not appear, to take further steps to secure his attendance. As the court below failed to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. The revision petition, therefore, succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 11.7.2001 is set aside and the learned trial court is requested to issue the summons to the said witness and in case he does not appear in spite of service of summons, to take further steps to secure his attendance and as the trial is pending since 1988, the trial court is requested to expedite the trial.With the these observations, the petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to the costs.Revision allowed. *******