JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Revision Petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is directed against order dated 13.06.2014 passed by learned Special Judge, CBI Cases at Jammu in case titled State through CBI v. Om Parkash Dhingra, whereunder the application of the petitioner-applicant for seeking the indulgence of the Court to summon witnesses/documents, has been rejected. 2. It is contended by the petitioner that on 13.06.2014, the petitioner got examined one witness in his defence and, simultaneously, moved an application for summoning Senior Manager Personnel of J&K Grameen Bank along with personal file of one ex-Senior Manager namely, Sh. Ranbir Singh, who was charge sheeted in connection with the embezzlement of Rs. 14,14,700/- at Branch Office, Khour in which the petitioner is singly facing trial but despite considering the application, the trial Court has rejected the same on the same date. 3. On the other hand, Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of CBI has argued that the application moved by the petitioner is nothing but with a mala fide intention so as to delay the trial whereas the petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunity to produce the witnesses in his defence but the petitioner always failed to produce the witnesses. 4. To substantiate her argument, Mrs. Kohli placed on record certified copies of various orders passed by the trial Court prior to the issuance of order dated 13.06.2014, through the medium of application, MP No. 1/2015. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court cannot be sustained as the documents/witnesses are material for proper and fair trial of the case. 7. Perusal of the certified copies of the proceedings of the trial Court reveals that vide orders dated 03.04.2014, 23.05.2014, 05.06.2014 and 06.06.2014 the petitioner was even granted last opportunity to produce the witnesses. Vide order dated 12.06.2014, further last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce the defence witnesses, failing which the defence evidence deserved to be closed. 8. The power of the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited and the revisional court is to interfere in the impugned order only if there is any illegality or material irregularity. Vide order dated 12.06.2014, further last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce the defence witnesses, failing which the defence evidence deserved to be closed. 8. The power of the Court exercising revisional jurisdiction is limited and the revisional court is to interfere in the impugned order only if there is any illegality or material irregularity. The Court concerned must be allowed a large gratitude in the matter of exercising the discretion and unless the Court was found to have conducted itself in so demonstrably and unreasonable manner unbecoming of judicial authority, the Court Superior to that Court cannot intervene very lightly or in a routine fashion to interpose or impose itself. 9. By moving application before the trial Court, the petitioner seems to delay the disposal of the trial because he, despite availing several opportunities, failed to produce the witnesses, as is clearly revealed from the orders mentioned above. 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, reported as 2009 (5) SCC 153 , has categorically held that the revision filed against the order passed by the trial court refusing to call the documents and rejecting the application are interlocutory orders and revision against the said orders was clearly barred and not maintainable. 11. In view of all, what has been said and discussed hereinabove, the revision petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed being not maintainable. Revision petition dismissed