JUDGMENT 1. - Admit. Mr. J.P. Sharma, advocate appears for Revenue plaintiff- contesting respondent No. 1. The other respondents are only proforma respondents, therefore, their service is dispensed with. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent against the defendants in the trial court in the year 1996. The defendants filed their written statement. The plaintiff's evidence was completed on 6th February, 2003 and thereafter the case was fixed for defendants' evider,^e on 1st April, 2003. The defendants' evidence was closed on 26th September, 2005 as defendants failed to adduce any evidence inspite of ten opportunities granted to them. Thereafter an application was moved under Section 151 CPC to allow the defendants to lead their evidence which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 26th May, 2007. Being aggrieved with the orders dated 26th September, 2005 and 26th May, 2007, the defendant No. 1 preferred this writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the matter was fixed for defendants' evidence on 1st April, 2003, but the annexed order sheets of the court below will show that on 24th September, 2004 the statement of DW-1 Pana Devi remained incomplete. The plaintiff filed one application on that day under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC and case was fixed for reply to the application on 22nd November, 2004, but that day the work of the court was suspended. The case was thereafter fixed on 25th February, 2004 but the advocates were on strikes on that day also. Thereafter the application under Order 13 Rule 2 CPC was dismissed by the Court on 20th May, 2005, therefore, the case was fixed for defendant's evidence again on 26th September, 2005. In these circumstances, it is wrong on the part of the trial court to observe that ten opportunities were granted to the defendants. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the order dated 26th September, 2005 was not challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal or revision or writ petition but only to delay the proceeding he moved the application in the trial court much after a delay of one year i.e. on 8th September, 2006 which was dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order dated 26th May, 2007. He contended that petitioner is a tenant and she wants to delay the eviction proceedings, therefore, the defendants deliberately did not adduce their evidence. He further contended that suit was filed in the year 1996 and in these circumstances no further opportunity should be granted to the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned order dated 26th September, 2005 and also the order dated 26th May, 2007 with other documents annexed with the writ petition. It is correct that ten opportunities were given to defendant to lead evidence but she failed to do so, therefore, trial court was fully justified in passing the order dated 26th September, 2005 as well as 26th May, 2007. However, in the interest of justice, I think it fit and proper to grant one more opportunity to defendant petitioner to adduce her evidence at her own, on payment of cost. 7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders passed by the trial court are set-aside. The defendant petitioner is permitted to adduce her all evidence at her own on 29th and 30th August, 2008 on payment of cost of Rs. 4000/-, which will be paid on or before the aforesaid date, failing which the petitioner will not be allowed to adduce her evidence. 8. So far as this writ petition is concerned, the cost is made easy. 9. In view of above, there is no need to pass any order on the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, which also stands disposed of.Writ petition allowed as above. *******