( 1 ) HEARD counsel. The petitioner submits that in spite of the fact that Court process was issued and the witness in question refused to accept the same, the trial Court passed an order that the petitioner would have no right to examine the witness. Earlier the petitioner had shown willingness to bring the witness at his own responsibility. The witness was not present on the date fixed that is on 16th of January, 1996. The trial Court as noticed above has passed an order that the petitioner would not have a right now to get that witness examined. R. S. Sarkaria, J. who later adorned the Bench of Supreme Court of India in Balwant Singh Bhagwan Singh v. Firm Raj Singh Baldev Kishan, AIR 1969 Punj and Har 197, observed as under in these matter (Para 7):-"but it can be said with equal force that there is nothing in the Civil Procedure Code which expressly inhibits the service of summonses by this mode. which has come to be known as Dasti process. On the other hand, the language of Rule 8 is very flexible. The words 'as nearly as may be' in that Rule are wide enough to permit the issue of Dasti process for witnesses, also. However, it seems to me that such process is n