C.R. No. 2943 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2943 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 18 , 2009 Smt. Shakuntla Devi ...........Petitioner Versus Punjab National Bank, Lambra and others ..........Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.H.R.Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.1 -- Sabina, J. (oral) This revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing the order dated 8.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for permission to produce, prove and exhibit certified copy of the documents of the plaintiff bank, was dismissed. Plaintiff-Bank has filed a suit for recovery. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.4-petitioner moved an application for permission to produce, prove and exhibit certified copies of the documents of the Bank. Vide the impugned order dated 8.4.2008, the said application was dismissed. Hence, the present revision petition. C.R. No. 2943 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner wants to produce the report of the Senior Inspector (Anexure P9) on record by way of additional evidence. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that already sufficient opportunities had been granted to defendant No.4 to lead her evidence and the application seeking permission to lead additional evidence had been rightly dismissed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. Annexure P7 is the application moved by the petitioner for permission to produce, prove and exhibit the certified copy of the documents of the plaintiff-Bank. A perusal of the same reveals that the said application is vague and does not specify as to which particular document the petitioner wants to prove on record and for what purpose. It is observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has examined 20 witnesses in support of her case. In these circumstance, the learned trial Court had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity which may warrant interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed ( Sabina ) Judge September 18, 2009 arya C.R. No. 2943 of 2008 (O&M) 3 C.R. No.43 Reserved Judgment arya