Admitte lh', the pctitioner lias filed a wr itterr r;litt( menI in thc main suit i.c. O.S. IVo.173 ol 2O\7 where n it :r :;pccifically avcrred Llrat s, me amounts werc translerred lt om t)ia ac,iount of hcr husbancl t ) the respondent- plaintill and also to t.-.e ;on :rnd daughter of t Le plaintiff. The fact that tht. hus l>anc of the petitioner is n issing sir.,ce last more than seven'y' t.rrs has not been clisputed l]' t1e respondent. The contenrion cl'.hc learncd counsel for the petr tioner that the petitioner is unab ,: l_o ]rocure the certificd c( l)ies of the bank statement of l'Le r hrrs krarrd, who has been mis;ing since last more than seven /::rrs, gains significanr:e e; the Bank rvill not furnish/d r;r:los,e any information u,i h rt:gard to the account of thrr hustr.,rnd of the petitioncr. Ev, n if the petitioner applie s for r:ertill:<: cr pies oi the statenlent rf ar;count o[ the husband o[ tlte petil]oltcr, thc samc s,ill not )e f -rrnishe d as the petitioncr is a tl: ; rd party, lvhich fact has reer lost sight by the trial Cour,.'lh,: rriirICourt on thc ground hat ttre petitioncr has not plact:d on rercord an1' material t() shc(' that she has approached the Banl: r:oncerncd ior provicling th r,to oies of the documents and r he [],tr. l< r efuse d to fttrnisl'r the s Lme, has riismrssed the I.A.
