in his cross-examination, inter alia, stated that he did not know whether defendants Nos. 10 and 11 had filed any suit dated 2.12.1993 against the plaintiffs which was got dismissed as withdrawn on 23.7.1997. It shows that the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 had never properly verified from the revenue authorities regarding the sanction of mutation in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs and also regarding rejection of mutation, which had been wrongly sanctioned in favour of defendants Nos. 10 and 11 on the basis of alleged sale deed No.553 dated 7.7.1990. None appeared in the witness box on behalf of defendants Nos. 5 to 9 to support the case set up by them. The evidence of the defendants had been closed by an order of the trial Court dated 12.10.2002 when sufficient opportunities, including last opportunities, had been granted to them by the trial Court to conclude their evidence. Last opportunities had been granted to the defendants by the trial Court vide orders dated 12.12.2001, 22.12.2001, 2.2.2002, 1.3.2002, 18.3.2002, 26.4.2002, 18.5.2002, 1.6.2002, 22.76.2002 and 17.9.2002. The last witness, namely, Harnek Singh (D.W.2) had been examined by the defendants on 20.9.2000 and, thereafter, for two years they had been availing numerous opportunities to conclude their evidence. The defendants had also advanced the plea of their evidence having been closed by the trial Court before the lower appellate Court, but this plea did not find any fovour with it (lower appellate Court) and rightly so. No dispute can be allowed to remain pending indefinitely when one of the parties is not interested in its conclusion for one reason or the other.
