Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The scope of exercise of judicial discretion to achieve the ends of justice, in furtherance to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is the basic question that deserves consideration in the present case.

2. Adopting of derivative approach with some clarity would suffice to elucidate the point in controversy. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while impugning the order dated 9.12.1998 in this revision contended that in the interest of justice, the learned trial Court ought to have granted another opportunity to lead evidence and ought not have passed the order closing the evidence of the plaintiffs. In order to barely examine the merit of this contention, reference to the impugned order would be appropriate.

"No PW is present. Issues were framed on 28.8.1997. Thereafter the plaintiff has been granted several opportunities. Last opportunity was granted for 16.10.1998. Thereafter one more opportunity was granted subject to cost of which the plaintiff has paid. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has requested for one more opportunity but I do not find any justification for the same. Evidence of the plaintiff is closed by order. Defendant is dire