JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.8.2004 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur City and order dated 25.9.2004 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.5, Jaipur City, by which the evidence of the defendant petitioner has been closed as the petitioner has failed to avail several opportunities to lead the evidence before the trial Court even though last opportunity was provided on cost of Rs. 200/-. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindjit (km.) reported in (2000) 8 SCC 532 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "in ascertaining whether a party has reasonable opportunity to put forward his case or not one should not ordinarily go beyond the date on which adjournment is sought for. The earlier adjournment, if any granted would certainly be for reasonable grounds and that aspect need not be once again examined if on the date on which adjournment is sought for the party concerned has a reasonable ground. The mere fact that in the past adjournments has been sought would not be of any materiality. If the adjournment had been sought for on filmy grounds the same would have been rejected." 3. After amendment in the CPC, this court in case of Ram Niwas v. Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) & Ors. reported in 2004 (2) CDR 1024 has held that "if the petitioner is not allowed to produce his evidence, injustice would be done to him and, therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be better that one more chance be given to the petitioner defendant to produce evidence in the trial Court." This consistent view has been followed by this Court in the various judgments. 4. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents has strongly controverted the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner and submits that in view of the amended CPC, the petitioner has no right to adduce the evidence. Even after, ample opportunities that too last opportunity on cost, the petitioner has not availed the same. Giving more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence will be a futile exercise resulting in delay of suit. 5. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the judgments referred by the petitioner. Even after, ample opportunities that too last opportunity on cost, the petitioner has not availed the same. Giving more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce the evidence will be a futile exercise resulting in delay of suit. 5. Heard rival submissions of the respective parties and perused the judgments referred by the petitioner. In the instant case, adjournments has been given to the petitioner, but it appears that on the last opportunity to lead the evidence, the adjournment sought for cannot be said to be on filmsy ground. It is no doubt that the petitioner defendant has not availed the opportunities, which were granted to him. Considering the ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, I deem it proper to give one chance to the petitioner to lead the evidence on its behalf before the trial Court on 18.1.2005 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2000/- The impugned orders dated 25.8.2004 and 25.9.2004 stand quashed and set aside. If the petitioner has failed to adduce the evidence on 18.1.2005 the impugned orders will become operative against the petitioners. 6. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.Writ petition allowed as above. *******