JAGAT NARAYAN, J. - (1.) THIS is a revision application by the defendant against an order of Munsif Jodhpur City, directing that process will not be issued for summoning two witnesses Raichand and Motilal on the ground that the defendant failed to go with the process-server to identify them as directed by him on the previous date.
(2.) TWO grounds have been raised on behalf of the defendant. One is that the court has no power to direct a party to go with the process-server to identify his witnesses. The other is that the order passed in respect of these two witnesses is not a proper one in the circumstances of the case. So far as the first ground is concerned I am of the opinion that the court has inherent power to direct a party to go with the process-server to identify his witnesses in a proper case. The note to R. 125 of the General Rules (Civil) framed by the Rajasthan High Court for subordinate courts runs as follows - "It should be impressed upon the processservers that it is their duty and of the party concerned, unless specially directed by the court in any particular case, to find out the person on whom the process is to be served. It is not necessary for the party to accompany them for identifying that person. They should seek the assistance of the village headman, patwari, chowkidar, etc. to find out the person on whom the process is to be served." No rule has been framed on the point as to when it would be proper for the court to specially direct a party to identify his witnesses. The other High Courts have framed rules on the point. The rules framed by the Calcutta High Court (R. 77), Nagpur High Court (R. 52) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Rule 11), Nagpur High Court ( Rule 52 ) and the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Rule 52 ) on this point are identical and are in the following words: - "If it appears to the Court that sufficient information is not given as to the identity and place of residence of the person on whom, or the house or property where a process is to be served, or if the Court is satisfied from the declaration of the serving officer or upon his examination on oath (if necessary) that the person to be served or the house or property could not be identified after due diligence and enquiry, it may ask the party concerned to supply an identifier." The inherent power of the court should be exercised in the light of the principle contained in the above rule. Coming now to the facts of the present case Motilal was summoned for 29-7-64. The report of the process-server shows that he was able to find his house but he was told that Motilal was not inside the house. The court could not have directed the defendant to point out Motilal's house in these circumstances. So far as Raichand is concerned the process server was unable to find his house as is clear from his report on the back of the summons issued for 28-8-64. The order of nishandehi passed in the case of Raichand is therefore proper and the order dated 16-11-64 ordering that he shall not be called again by issuing process through court is also proper. The revision application is allowed in part as indicated above. The court shall send a summons for Motilal for service through the process server. In the circumstances of the case, I direct that parties shall bear their own costs of this revision application. The stay order is discharged. ;