( 1 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that this application is not maintainable and the appropriate remedy was an appeal under Chapter II rule 4 of Delhi high Court Rules. There is some dispute on the question whether this application is maintainable under rule 4, Chapter II of Delhi high Court Rules (for short rules ) and whether the Registrar has power to pass the order dated 8th May, 2003 under Chapter II rule 3 of the Rules, closing the evidence of the plaintiff. I have examined the order 8th may, 2003. The order displays that the defendant has already done the cross examination of the plaintiff and according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that runs into six pages. The statement of Mr. Arya has also signed the power of attorney for the defendant. Thus, the registrar has rightly noted that the PW-1 had come from Bombay and spent over Rs. 6500/- a visit. Mr. Arya was given an opportunity to cross examine the plaintiff. This opportunity was not availed of. Even proceeding on the assumption that the Registrar did not have the power to close the evidence, I am of the view that the registrar has passed the correct order and this Court adopts and affirms the reasoning contained in the order passed by the Registrar dated 8th May, 2003. I have also noted the conduct of the defendant as disclosed by orders dated 21st August. 2003, 29th september, 2003, 9th January, 5th March, 2004, 14th March, 2004, 23rd July, 2004 and 12th August, 2004 which shows that the defendant was not over eager for the expeditious disposal of the case. The order closing the evidence is thus justified on this account also. ( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY, this application whether considered as appeal against the order dated 8th May, 2003 or on its own averments has no merits and stands dismissed. IA No. 1419/2004 and 1640/2004 ( 3 ) LIST the matter on 29th November, 2004.