IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2151 of 2008 Sri Umesh Kishore Sharan, Bank retired officer, S/o late Sakaldeo Narain, resident of Road No.3-B, Usha- Kuteer, Ashok Nagar, P.S. Kankarbagh, P.O. Kankarbagh, District- Patna. …..Plaintiff…..Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India, through the Chief General Manager, Local Head Office at Judges Court Road, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District- Patna. 2. The Chairman, State Bank of India, Madam Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021. 3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Judges Court Road, P.S.- Pirbahore, P.O. Bankipur, District- Patna. 4. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Fraser Road, P.O.- G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. 5. The Asstt. General Manager, Specialised Personal Banking Branch, West of Gandhi Maidan, P.O. - G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali, District- Patna. …Principal defendants…. Opp. 1st Party. 6. The Asstt. General Manager (PPG), Provident Fund, Pension & Gratuity Department, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Chamber Bhawan, Judges Court Road, P.S. Pirbahore, P.O.- Bankipore, District- Patna. ….Proforma defendant…Opp.2nd party. ----------- 04- 15.11.2011 Heard Mr. Hare Krishna Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Kaushalendra Kumar Sinha for opposite party nos.1 to 6. The plaintiff of Money Suit No.75 of 2003 has preferred this civil revision application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 18.11.2008, passed by the 2 learned Subordinate Judge 1st Court, Patna, whereby the order has been passed regarding admissibility of a piece of evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows: “So far as marking the document is concerned, from perusal of record, it transpires that the document in question is neither a public document nor it is original rather it is carbon copy of a letter does nor bear any original signature and as such the same is obviously not sufficient to mark as exhibit. However, it is ordered to mark „X‟ for identification with observation that its evidenciary value will be adjudicated at the time of decision of the suit after the original is brought on the record by the plaintiff. Put up the record on 11.12.2008 for further hearing.” We are of the view that the learned trial court has passed a perfectly legal order and has kept enough scope open for the plaintiff to enable him to have the document marked exhibit for identification at the time of hearing. The impugned order cannot be faulted. 3. The civil revision application is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/