Vigilant prosecution of cases and prevention of unnecessary delays are emphasized, and failure to produce evidence despite opportunities can lead to dismissal of the suit.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. This appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenges the judgment dated 7.6.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Faridabad, holding that despite six opportunities having been granted to the plaintiff-appellant, he failed to produce any evidence. Even no list of witnesses was filed. The evidence of the plaintiff-appellant was closed on 26.3.1997 when the suit was also dismissed. The views taken by the learned Additional District Judge in para 10 read as under:-

"Issue in this case were framed on 11.10.1993. First date for the evidence of the plaintiff was 25.7.1994. On that day neither plaintiff had summoned any witness nor had brought his evidence on his own. Even plaintiff had not turned up. The case was adjourned to 13.2.1995 for evidence of plaintiff on his own responsibility. Even on that day neither the plaintiff nor his evidence came in the Court and thus the case was further adjourned to 4.9.1995 for evidence of the plaintiff on payment of Rs. 30/- as costs. On 4.9.1995 also neither the plaintiff had come nor any evidence was brought nor any reason was given for not bringing the evidence. However, the Court adjourned the case to 11.4.1996 for evidence of the plaintiff with last opportunity in this respect. On 11.3.1996 the learned Civil Judge had proceeded on leave and so the case was taken up on 9.3.1996 and was fixed for 18.11.1996 for evidence of the plaintiff on 18.11.1996 also no evidence was brought rather it was submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that he had noted down 28.11.1996 in this case in place of 18.11.1996. On his request the case was adjourned to 28.11.1996 for evidence of the plaintiff. Strangely even on 28.11.1996 also no evidence was brought by the plaintiff nor he had come himself. Taking a lenient view the Court adjourned the case to 26.3.1997 for evidence of the plaintiff on his own responsibility and with last opportunity in this respect. As usual on 26.3.1997 also no evidence was brought nor the plaintiff had turned up and ultimately the learned Sub Judge was forced to close the evidence of the plaintiff under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. One more fact stands revealed from the perusal of the record of the lower court that the plaintiff never field any list of witnesses in this case. Mere perusal of the zimni orders discussed above shows that plaintiff dealt with this case in a casual manner. He was given six effective opportunities including two last opportunities to adduce his evidence. Neither he brought any evidence on these dates nor he himself turned up and thus in such circumstances the learned Sub Judge was left with no alternative except to close the evidence of the plaintiff. As already pointed out plaintiff was negligent to the extent that he had never filed any list of witnesses. Thus it stands made out that the plaintiff was given more than sufficient and reasonable opportunities to adduce his evidence. Thus finding no merit therein I hereby dismiss this appeal with costs."

2. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the decree passed on 28.7.1993 which is the subject matter of challenge in the suit is illegal and the plaintiff-appellant -would suffer irreparable loss if the afore-mentioned decree is made binding on the rights of the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel has prayed that one opportunity be granted to the plaintiff-appellant to conclude his entire evidence.

3. Mr. R.M. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has argued that the suit was filed on 2.11.1993 and the Civil Judge waited and granted various opportunities till 26.3.1997 but the plaintiff-appellant failed to adduce any evidence. Eventually the evidence of the plaintiff-appellant was closed and his suit was dismissed for want of evidence.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not feel persuaded to take a view different than the one taken by the Courts below.