1. - This is a revision petition against the order of learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur dated 7.1.1999 by which the evidence of the plaintiff was closed as two witnesses of the plaintiff were not present on that date.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

3. As suit for eviction of a shop and recovery of rent was filed by the plaintiff in the year 1992 on the ground of default and bona fide necessityas well as subletting. The suit proceeded and provisional rent was determined on 26.2.94. The evidence of the plaintiff could commence on 20.10.97 when statement of plaintiff was recorded. His another witness Sadhu Ram was examined on 19.8.98. His two witnesses remained to be examined and they are Phool Chand and Bhagwan Sahai. Various opportunities were taken but since they were ill they could not be produced and on the date of hearing when the evidence was closed, it was stated that Phool Chand had undergone eye operation and was discharged from the hospital but was not in a position to attend the court. It may be stated that though the evidence of plaintiff was closed on 8.10.98 but the trial Court had given further opportunity to produce the witnesses on 4.12.98 on which date no witness was present and hence the suit was adjourned to 7.1.99 when the witnesses were not present and ultimately the evidence of the plaintiff was closed.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are judgments of this Court to the effect that a party should be given sufficient opportunity in order to do full justice as the rules of procedure are to facilitate the justice and not to hamper it. He drew my attention to such judgments rendered by me in which the evidence was reopened on cost as well as of Justice V.S. Kokje wherein it has been held that full opportunity should be given. He submitted that it was the suit of the plaintiff who was not interested in delaying it but it was because of the fact that Phool Chand and Bhagwan Sahai both were ill and could not be produced on 7.1.99. It has been prayed that an opportunity may be given to produce these two witnesses with some conditions.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that this is not a fit case in which plaintiff should be given opportunity as no sufficient cause is shown for non-production of the witnesses. He cited LIC of India v. Smt. Chhatwani (WLN 1994 (1) 158), and Dayal Ram v. Prabhu Ram and Ors. (1995 DNJ (Raj) 380) in which five chances were given to produce the witnesses. It has been submitted that in all 30 opportunities were given to the plaintiff and no further opportunity should be given. It may be stated that Phool Chand and Bhagwan Sahai were such witnesses for whom opportunity was given to the plaintiff time and again but they could not be produced because they were ill. Plaintiff who has filed a suit for eviction for bona fide need of his own on the ground of bona fide requirement would not like to delay the matter unless it was beyond his control. It appears that the two witnesses Phool Chand and Bhagwan Sahai could not be produced for the simple reason that they were sick and infer on the dates given by the learned trial Court. Sufficient cause was shown for their non-production even on the date when their evidence was closed.

6. I have been explicitly opinion in various judgments that the rules of procedure are to facilitate justice and a party should be given full opportunity to lead his evidence. One of the reasons is that if the evidence is closed and the suit is dismissed for insufficiency of evidence. Therefore, to curb such a remanded in appeal for recording the evidence. Therefore, to curb such a situation it will be proper that sufficient opportunity is given in the trial Court to the parties to lead evidence. In this case, when the suit itself was filed by the plaintiff-petitioner who could not have been ordinarily slow in producing his witne