IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.444 of 2009 RAM DHYAN SINGH Versus TRIVENI SAO ----------- 4 09.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This revision application has been filed by the respondent of Misc. Case No. 4 of 2006 against the order dated 11.02.2009 passed by Sub-Judge, Aurangabad by which the learned court below has rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing summon to Postal Superintendent, Aurangabad for appearing in the court as a witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of the miscellaneous case in the execution proceeding for execution of judgment and decree passed in the suit for specific performance, notices were sent by the petitioner through registered post. With regard to the genuineness of notice, the trial court itself called for a report from the Postal Superintendent, which has been received. He submits that the report requires formal proof by Postal Superintendent by deposing as a witness in the proceeding. The Court below has rejected the application as being baseless. - 2 - The mere apprehension of the petitioner that the said report may not be considered by the court below at subsequent stage without there being any formal proof by the Postal Superintendent cannot justify the application of the petitioner for calling upon the Postal Superintendent as a witness. Therefore, at this stage, the impugned order cannot be said to be illegal. In case the alleged report submitted by the Postal Superintendent is not taken into account by the trial court, the petitioner will be at liberty to raise the issue in accordance with law. With the above observation, the revision application is disposed of. Kundan (J. N. Singh, J.)