VINEY MITTAL, J. - (1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court. They filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the enquiry report given by defendant No.3 and the order dated August 29, 1995 passed by defendant NO.2 and order dated January 19, 1998 passed by defendant No.4 are null and void, inoperative and illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice. A mandatory injunction was further sought against the defendants for directing them to release an amount of Rs.2,22,048.01 paise along with interest.
(2.) The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiffs are the widow and son of C.L.Gupta, who had joined the defendants in the year 1969 and was to retire on November 30, 1998, on attaining the age of superannuation. However, C.L. Gupta, died on September 2, 1995. The present plaintiffs submitted a representation for the grant due amount as well as the pension by submitting an L.R. certificate to the defendants' office. However, an order dated January 19, 1996 was passed affecting the recovery of the amount of Rs.17,045/- on account of House Building Advance. On the basis of the detailed pleadings made in the suit, the plaintiffs filed the suit in question on January 18, 1999. When the matter was pending before the trial court for the evidence of the plaintiffs, a large number of opportunities were granted to them for leading evidence. However, a witness of the plaintiffs was being examined. Even before the said examination-in-chief was completed, the said witness absented himself on the subsequent dates. In these circumstances, an order dated October 10, 2002 was passed by the trial Judge closing the evidence of the plaintiffs by Court order.
(3.) Since there was no evidence of the plaintiffs available on the record, therefore, the defendants also made a statement that they did not want to lead any evidence. In these circumstances, for want of evidence, the trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. An appeal filed by them was also dismissed by the learned first Appellate Court. The plaintiffs have now chosen to file the present Regular Second Appeal. Mr. Anuj Raura, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffappellants has contended that the plaintiffs being the widow and the son of C.L.Gupta, were handicapped in pursuing the case. Although a large number of opportunities were granted by the trial Court, but because of the unavoidable circumstances, the evidence of the plaintiffs could not be concluded. In these circumstances, the learned counsel requests that only one opportunity be granted to the plaintiffs to lead their entire evidence.;