ORDER

1. The grievance of the petitioner/plaintiff is that the trial Court has closed his right to produce evidence vide order dated 26.9.2018 (Annexure P/8).

2. The facts reflect that the petitioner filed a suit in the year 2006 seeking injunction against the respondents from interfering in his possession over the suit property. He concluded his evidence in the year 2011 but thereafter started filing interim applications at certain intervals. He filed 3-4 applications for taking additional documents on record. The last of them was considered and dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 19.9.2018 which is under challenge in M.P. No.4705/2018. After the dismissal of that application, some more opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence with a cogent warning that since the case pertains to the year 2006 and there are directions of the High Court to conclude such cases at the earliest, no further adjournment shall be granted. The trial Court repeatedly granted the last opportunity to adduce evidence with the aforesaid warning but the petitioner never bothered or honoured them. Ultimately, the trial Court refused to grant more opportunities and closed his right to adduce evidence.

3. The grounds urged by the petitioner are that he sought permission to produce some additional documents and was hopeful that the trial Court ought to allow that application and if his application would be allowed, he would adduce his evidence. He was ready to do so but since the application was rejected, and he challenged that order, no evidence could be adduced by him. It is further averred that while returning back to Bhopal, the petitioner fell sick on account of viral infection, therefore, he could not appear or produce his witnesses before the Court. A medical certificate was annexed along with the application, therefore, the trial Court should have believed upon the statement made by him. The absence of the petitioner was not willful whereas it was on account of his sickness which was beyond his control. The petitioner had already led the evidence and wanted to examine witnesses only with regard to the documents which were relevant and were sought to be produced by him, therefore, no prejudice was likely to cause to the other side, if the documents would have been taken on record and the petitioner would have been granted an opportunity to prove them.

4. It is further submitted that the High Court has entertained his petition being Misc. Petition No.4705/2018 against the order dated 19.9.2018, whereby, the trial Court refused to take the additional documents on record and has also granted a stay. Therefore, the trial Court should not have closed his right.

5. It is requested that if a single opportunity is granted, the petitioner will adduce evidence. The right to close the evidence would amount to denying a party to seek justice as a great prejudice is likely to be caused to the petitioner, therefore, it is prayed to setaside the impugned order and grant opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the order impugned and the proceedings of the trial Court placed on record by him and submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is lacking bonafide and disentitles him to get any relief as sought for.

7. While dismissing the application for adjournment or to grant some more time to the petitioner to adduce evidence, the trial Court observed that the suit filed by the petitioner himself was pending since 2006 and there was a direction of the High Court to conclude the same as early as possible. Sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence. On the last date of hearing i.e. 10.8.2018 also, the petitioner did not produce evidence instead obtained adjournment by filing a medical certificate. Again on the next date of hearing, a similar prayer was made and allowed but even thereafter, instead of producing evidence, he filed an application for tak