JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur dated July 29, 1993 by which he has closed the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus. 2. In the year 1983, the plaintiff bank filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 2,88,099/- against the defendant-non-petitioners. The Bank produced its first witness H.K. Charan P.W.-1 on November 26,1992. On July 06, 1993, the Bank was given last opportunity to produce its witnesses on July 29, 1993. Four more dates were fixed in the case in between 26th November,1992 and 6th July, 1993 for the same purpose. Even on July 29, 1993 no witness was produced and the trial Court closed the plaintiff's evidence. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner that the learned trial Court was requested to fix July 31, 1993 for recording the statements of the remaining witnesses, it refused to adjourn the case and closed the plaintiff's evidence and thus committed material irregularity in the exercise of its jurisdiction. He further contended that the suit was filed by the then Branch Manager D.R. Mirani who subsequently retired and died and the search of original power of attorney executed in his favour took long time. He lastly contended that the learned trial Court should have granted adjournment on 29-07-93 for two days to produce the remaining witnesses on payment of costs. 4. There is no substance in the revision petition. Admittedly, suit was filed in the year 1985. The plaintiff-petitioner examined its first witness H.K. Charan P.W.-1 on 26-11-1992. Thereafter, five dates were fixed for the plaintiff's evidence. On the fourth date, i.e. July 06, 1993, the plaintiff-petitioner was given last opportunity to produce its witnesses on July 29,1993. 4. There is no substance in the revision petition. Admittedly, suit was filed in the year 1985. The plaintiff-petitioner examined its first witness H.K. Charan P.W.-1 on 26-11-1992. Thereafter, five dates were fixed for the plaintiff's evidence. On the fourth date, i.e. July 06, 1993, the plaintiff-petitioner was given last opportunity to produce its witnesses on July 29,1993. Proviso (b) of Rule 1 of Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs as under : "(b) no adjournment shall be granted on the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party." It is not mentioned in the revision petition as to why search of original power of attorney executed in favour of late D.R. Mirani took "a long time" and as to why the remaining witnesses could not be produced on earlier four dates fixed for the evidence and also on the last date i.e. July 29, 1993. It has neither been averred in the revision petition nor urged during arguments as to what and how the circumstances were beyond the control of the plaintiff Bank on account of which the remaining witnesses could not be produced earlier when the time of two days was sought on July 29, 1993 for their production on 31-07-1993. This simply shows that the officer-in-charge of the plaintiff-bank was not serious to proceed with the case as he should have been. On account of the delay in the disposal of suits of banks and financial institutions, the Parliament has to pass The Recovery of the Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Sub-section (4) of Section 19 provides summary procedure and sub-section (8) requires its final disposal within six months of its institution. In view of these facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the learned Addl. District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur acted with material irregularity or illegality in closing the evidence. The plaintiff-bank is to thank itself if its suit is dismissed for want of evidence. 5. Accordingly, the revision petition is summarily dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman, Punjab National Bank, 7 Madame Cama Road New Delhi for information and necessary action.Revision dismissed. *******