Rs.2,000/- as imposed upon them by way of cost. It appears that thereafter the defendants were granted opportunities for more than 3 years to lead their evidence, however, when they failed to examine any witness on their behalf, by an order dated 03.05.2017 their evidence was closed. About 3 months thereafter, the defendants have filed an application on 01.08.2017 for recall of order dated 03.05.2017 and to permit them to examine their witnesses. In this application the defendants have pleaded that on account of death of defendant no.1 they were substituted and that is the reason the defendants could not examine their witnesses in the suit. This plea apparently is not correct. It was defendant no.1 who died during the pendency of the suit and legal heirs and successors of defendant no.1 were substituted vide order dated 20.09.2016. There is no explanation why the defendants could not lead evidence, particularly the defendant no.2, before the defendant no.1 died. Even after substitution of the defendant no.1, the defendants when failed to examine any witness for over 8 months, constrained, the trial Judge has closed the defendants' evidence. From the aforesaid facts it is apparent that more than sufficient opportunities were granted to the defendants to lead evidence and, not only that, their conduct has demonstrated that they are negligent litigants. Apparently, the trial Judge has rightly refused to permit the defendants to lead evidence at this stage.
