Mudgal. J. 1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 20.1.2009 passed by the Court of X Additional District Judge, Gwalior (Shri Upendra Kumar Singh) in Civil Suit No. 50A of 2006 whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff Sukhia Bai for declaration of title and permanent injunction in connection with the land bearing Survey No. 519 area 0.073 Hectare situated at village Kota Haar, Lashkar was dismissed. In this appeal, the appellant is referred as ‘plaintiff’ and respondents as ‘defendants’.

2. The facts, in brief, of the plaint are that the plaintiff has been in possession of the disputed land since 23.11.1991 within the knowledge of the defendants owing to which, she has acquired the right of Bhumiswami on the basis of adverse possession. The defendants No. 1 and 2 were trying to dispossess the plaintiff, hence, the suit was filed for the relief as stated earlier.

3. The defendants submitting their written statement have stated that the plaintiff has neither acquired the right of Bhumiswami nor is in possession of the disputed land. The entire suit is based on bogus facts. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any relief in the suit.

4. The appellant’s counsel submits that the impugned judgment and decree being contrary to law deserves to be set-aside as the opportunity for producing the evidence was not given by the learned trial Court. When the plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 16.10.2008, the case was fixed for order on the application under section 151 of CPC despite that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed without any sufficient reason, owing to which, the plaintiff was deprived to contest the suit on merits and so the order dated 16.10.2008 and the impugned judgment deserue to be set-aside. The appellant’s counsel further submits that the case be remanded to the learned trial Court for deciding the case afresh after giving proper opportunity to the plaintiff and the defendants for producing the evidence.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in spite of having been jiuen the sufficient adjournmets for producing the evidence to the plaintiff, she had utterly failed to produce the witnesses owing to which, the learned trial Court has not committed any error in closing the evidence of the plaintiff as well as passing the impugned judgment and decree. Learned counsel further submits that if the case is remanded to the learned trial Court, heavy cost be imposed upon the plaintiff.

6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel and perused the record.

7. On perusal of the record, it becomes clear that the issues were framed on 4.12.2006, thereafter, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 3.1.2007. On the due date, the Court employees were on strike, consequently, the case was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence on 3.2.2007. On the fixed date, the plaintiff filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with section 151 of the CPC which was allowed vide order dated 28.2.2007. In consequence of the said amendment, the defendants incorporated consequential amendment in the written statement. Thereafter, the case was fixed for framing of additional issues, but no issue was framed. The date 19.6.2007 was fixed for plaintiff’s evidence but on the fixed date, neither the plaintiff nor her witnesses appeared before the Court, hence, a further date for evidence was fixed on 7.7.2007. On the fixed date, two statements of Buddharam and Hasina were produced by the plaintiff under order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC and two applications one under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) read with section 151 of CPC and second under section 6 Rule 17 of the CPC were filed by the plaintiff. The said applications were decided vide order dated 1.9.2007.

8. The document of agreement to sell was not duly stamped owing to which, the said document was sent to the Collector Stamp for validation, where from, the Court was informed to get the plaintiff to pay the am