ORDER :

1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs before the Court below, have filed the present petition in this Court challenging order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Court below, whereby application filed for review of order dated 13.11.2017, whereby evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court, has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction on 03.04.1999. While the evidence of the petitioner was being led and as per the court record, the case was fixed on 13.11.2017 but the counsel for the plaintiffs wrongly noted the same as 14.11.2017, hence on the date fixed, evidence could not be produced. As a result of which, learned Court below closed the evidence of the plaintiffs. Application for review of the order was filed after the aforesaid order came to the knowledge of the petitioners/plaintiffs on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.12.2017. The same was dismissed.

3. Assailing the aforesaid order it was submitted that the petitioners were not able to lead evidence on the date fixed only for the reason that wrong date of hearing was noted otherwise, there was no intention as such not to conclude the evidence. Immediately when the aforesaid order of closure of evidence came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, they filed application for review of the order. Learned Court below has wrongly rejected the review application. The Court should have considered the fact that the procedure is handmade of justice and substantive relief to a party should not be denied only because of one default. In case, one opportunity is granted, the petitioners will conclude their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire effort of the petitioners is to harass the respondents. In the suit filed way back in the year 1999, in which issues were framed on 27.12.2002, the plaintiffs could not conclude their evidence even in last 15 years. It was a result of extra indulgence granted by the Court below that the petitioners were able to delay the decision of the suit. As a result of pendency of litigation, the respondents, who had purchased the land long back, have not been able to enjoy its fruits. It was the duty of the counsel to have noted correct date. In case of failure only he has to suffer. There is presumption of correctness of the orders passed by the Courts. Even if, claim made by the petitioners that wrongly date of hearing was noted as 14.11.2017 instead of 13.11.2017, is considered, the application filed for review of the order in December, 2017 was highly belated as no plea could be taken that he came to know about the order later on. It was duty of the counsel to have enquired on 14.11.2017 about the proceedings which had taken place on 13.11.2017, the date for which the case was noted by counsel for the plaintiffs.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Brief facts, which are not in dispute, are that a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction was filed by the petitioners on 03.04.1999. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed on 27.12.2002. Ever since then, till such time evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court below on 13.11.2017, despite numerous opportunities, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not been able to conclude their evidence. It was a long rope of about 15 years already granted by the Court below to the petitioners/plaintiffs to conclude their evidence. On 13.11.2017, the learned Court below passed the following order vide which the evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners was closed:-

“Plaintiff not present in person or through counsel.

No any witness for plaintiff is present despite being direction of the Court, failing which necessary order will follow.

Perused the interim orders dated 9-10-2017 and 23.10.2017. The plaintiff has failed to bring any