( 1 ) THIS revision has been preferred against the order 5-3-2009 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 15 Allahabad in S. T. No. 47 of 1993 State vs. Dhanraj whereby rejecting the application of the revisionist moved under section 311 Cr. P. C. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the revisionists and learned AGA and also Sri K. D. Tiwari appearing from the side of opposite party no. 2 and perused the impugned order. ( 3 ) IT is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionists that the court has wrongly rejected the application moved by the revisionists under section 311 Cr. P. C. without ascertaining the factual aspects of the case. He has cited rulings given in the cases of Hanuman Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and others 2008 (4) Crimes (SC) 192, Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. vs. Compute Joint India Ltd. 2008 (3) Crimes (SC) 322 and State of U. P. vs. Abhai Raj Singh 2004 AIR (SC) 3235. Learned AGA contended that the revisionists cannot compel the court to entertain application under section 311 Cr. P. C. and the court after discussing facts of the case has passed the impugned order and date is fixed for judgment and simply to linger on the proceedings application under section 311 Cr. P. C. was moved. ( 4 ) UNDER section 311 Cr. P. C. the court has power to summon the material witness for examining any person. It is discretionary power but it is mandatory for the court to summon or examine or recall and re-examine any person if any evidence appears to it to be essential to the just decision of the case. ( 5 ) REVISIONISTS are accused in the case. It is submitted on their behalf that the original documents are not on record and the court not only proceeding on the basis of photostat copy of some unreliable and forged documents and even the fact as to from where these documents were produced and brought on record has not been disclosed. Hence in absence of original and relevant documents, trial court cannot proceed with the case. Hence in absence of original and relevant documents, trial court cannot proceed with the case. ( 6 ) IN the impugned order court has specifically observed that some duplicate copy of the documents have been produced in the court and Subedar Singh himself is not material witness and learned counsel for the accused has not shown the ground on the basis of which he wants to cross-examine PW-2 Sant Lal Yadav. Even site plan relating to occurrence is not on the file. The court thought it proper not to allow application under section 311 Cr. P. C. because it would serve no purpose. The case is fixed for judgment, no illegality or materiel irregularity is found in the impugned order. The revision has no force and dismissed. .