herein were granted opportunities to lead the evidence. No evidence was led despite grant of four opportunities by the Local Commissioner so much so the petitioners did not even bother to appear before the Local Commissioner. 5. The learned Trial Court was therefore, constrained to pass the order closing the petitioner’s evidence by impugned order dated 07.01.2025. 6. Mr. H. S. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, the learned Trial Court did not take into account the fact that after framing of issues, the matter remained pending for evidence of the respondents for about four years and during this period, several adjournments were sought by respondent No.1 for the said purpose. 7. Learned counsel further submits that both the petitioners are senior citizens and petitioner No.1 is suffering from health issues having undergone bypass surgery in the year 2023. 8. It is submitted that affidavit of petitioner No.1 has already been placed on record and petitioner No.1 needs only one opportunity to examine himself and no other witness is to be examined. He further submits that the closure of evidence of the petitioners would result in miscarriage of justice. 9. The petition has been opposed by Mr. Pratyaksh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitting that it is an old case of the year 2014 and that the petitioners have been granted sufficient opportunities for leading its evidence and despite grant of such opportunity, petitioners have failed to lead its evidence and therefore, there is no justification for the grant of further adjournment to the petitioners for leading the evidence. 10. Undisputedly, it is an old case pending before the learned Trial Court for more than 10 years. I have also been told that in the past, there have been directions from High Court for expeditious disposal of the case.
