ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. - (1.) THE present revision has been filed against the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Ambala, dated 14.6.2003 by which the application filed by the petitioners for recalling the order dated 20.7.2001 whereby the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners was ordered to be closed was dismissed.
(2.) THE plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 12.9.1995 of the land measuring 15 kanals 15 marlas situated in village Gadhouli, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala. The issues in the case were framed on 2.4.1997 and thereafter the case was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiffs. Despite availing of more than eight opportunities the plaintiffs-petitioners failed to complete their evidence and ultimately vide order dated 20.7.2001 the evidence of the plaintiffs-petitioners was closed by the orders of the Court and the case was fixed for defendants' evidence. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 18 Rule 17-A of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to adduce additional evidence. After several adjournments, the case was fixed for arguments on 27.1.2003 and on that date when no one appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, the application of the petitioners for seeking permission to lead additional evidence was dismissed. Thereafter, the defendants concluded their evidence and the case was fixed for rebuttal and arguments for 30.4.2003. A perusal of the above mentioned facts clearly shows that the plaintiffs were negligent in pursuing the case. The petitioner filed the application for recalling the order dated 20.7.2001 on 8.5.2003 i.e. after an inordinate delay of one year and nine months and at such a belated stage the same cannot be permitted. Apart from the above, as the application of the petitioners for leading additional evidence has already been dismissed, therefore, he could not be allowed to lead additional evidence now. Moreover, the defendants evidence has also been concluded and arguments have also been heard. The case was fixed for pronouncement of judgment on 26.7.2003 when the application was filed by the petitioners for staying further proceedings in the case. As the entire evidence has been led by both the sides and arguments of the defendants have also been heard, therefore, the trial Court rightly rejected the application of the petitioners for recalling the order dated 20.7.2001.
(3.) IN view of the above, there is no merit in the present revision and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;