1. Counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs, upon instructions, applies for time four weeks time on the ground that the advocate for the plaintiff is bed ridden. The suit is of 1982. It would not be proper to adjourn this Notice of Motion for such length of time when the plaintiffs' own evidence is pending. It would be counterproductive to the rights of the plaintiffs themselves. The plaintiffs are informed that the Court may take up this matter on Monday, 13th April, 2015 so that counsel on behalf of the plaintiffs who appears today may address the court. However, the plaintiffs do not desire to have the matter argued on 13th April, 2015. Hence the Notice of Motion is required to be heard.

2. The plaintiffs have taken out the above Notices of Motion, in the suit which has been filed in 1982, for passing exparte decree and refusing opportunity to the defendant to cross examine the plaintiff's witness. The defendants having been served the writ of summons, have appeared but not filed any written statement. Defendant No.4 has expired. His heirs have been brought on record as defendants Nos.4(a) to 4(c). The other defendants have not filed any written statement. They claim that