MADAN, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners, who are tenants, by way of this revision petition, have come up challenging the order dated 4. 12. 1997 (impugned) passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (JD), No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 163/1996, whereby petitioners-defendants' evidence has been closed. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendants/petitioners on 5. 4. 96 on the grounds of (a) default in payment of rent and (b) closure of the suit premises. The defendants contested the case by filing written statement and denied the averments as stated in the plaint, on the basis of which, the trial court framed the issues on 13. 3. 97. Thereafter, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 on 3. 5. 97 and closed his evidence and the case was posted for recording the evidence of the defendants on 4. 11. 97. It has been contended that there was a condolence meeting to mourn the sad demise of Justice Hansaria on 4. 11. 97, as such the work was suspended after 1. 00 PM to which the petitioner sent back his client and asked him to remain present on the next date i. e. 26. 11. 97. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that case was fixed earlier also for recording of defendants' evidence on 27. 5. 97 when an application for extension of time for depositing arrears of rent was moved by the counsel. Thereafter the case was fixed on 3. 7. 97 and it was again adjourned by the trial court to 8. 9. 97 and on that date, the Presiding Officer was on leave, thereafter the matter was posted on 4. 10. 97 and 4. 11. 97 respectively and adjourned from time to time. On all the aforesaid dates, the defendants had failed to lead their evidence for one reason or the other and the case was thus adjourned from time to time. Basically, I find no justification towards the attitude of the petitioners in dragging on the case by getting it adjourned on one pretext or the other. It appears that there was no justification for adjourning the case but it was adjourned as so stated above. During the course of hearing, on being specifically asked to explain the reason for uncalled for adjournments, learned counsel for the petitioners has conveyed assurance to this Court that if a fixed date is given, he shall make all endeavour to see that the evidence is lead on that date and that he shall be ready with the evidence of witnesses to be examined before the trial court for recording their evidence.
(3.) AS a result of this discussion, I find no error on the part of the trial court in having declined the permission to the petitioners in the matter of recording of evidence, which requires no interference by this Court. However, in the interest of justice, last opportunity is given to the petitioners to lead their evidence. No further extension shall be permitted at any cost. The petitioner is accordingly directed to produce his witnesses at his own responsibility before the trial court on 10. 07. 2001 and, if they are so produced, as directed, they be examined by the trial court in the first instance as the case is pending since 1996. The trial court is further directed to decide the matter expeditiously and in any case not later than four months from the date of submission of certified copy of this Order. With the above observations, this revision petition stands disposed of. .;