JUDGMENT Mr. Jaswant Singh.J. (Oral).- Defendants/petitioners in the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution have assailed the order dated 23.12.2010 whereby their evidence has been closed by Court order. 2. Facts in brief are that respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 25.8.2006, whereby on receipt of earnest money of Rs.14.10 lacs in cash by the defendants/petitioners they had agreed to sell their land measuring 14K-8M fully described in the head note of the plaint @ Rs.8 lacs per acre. The targetted date was to be fixed on issue of due notice by the plaintiffs/purchasers. It was stated by the plaintiffs/respondents that defendants/petitioners in part performance of the agreement to sell, had executed sale deed qua some portion of the total suit land. The defendants/petitioners contested the suit and denied the agreement to sell. 3. It is apparent that the evidence of the respondents/plaintiffs was closed on 30.8.2010. Thereafter the evidence of the petitioners/defendants had commenced. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though four clear opportunities to lead their evidence have been availed, however, the presence of the official witnesses namely Clerk of the Bank and Income Tax Department was beyond the control of the defendants/petitioners. It is submitted that for their presence the diet money/expenses had been deposited in the Court and therefore, it was incumbent upon the trial court to secure their presence through coercive methods before closing the evidence of the defendants/ petitioners. 4. Upon notice, Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs. He submits that the entire effort of the petitioners/defendants is to merely delay the conclusion of the suit proceedings. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find it expedient in the interest of justice to grant one opportunity to the petitioners/defendants since they had deposited the diet money/expenses to secure the presence of the official witnesses and it cannot be said that they were wholly negligent in pursuing their cause. 6. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 23.12.2010 is set aside and the defendants/petitioners are granted one effective opportunity to conclude their evidence on their own responsibility on a date to be fixed by the trial court. This shall however, be subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondents/plaintiffs by way of demand draft. 7. 6. Accordingly, present revision petition is allowed, impugned order dated 23.12.2010 is set aside and the defendants/petitioners are granted one effective opportunity to conclude their evidence on their own responsibility on a date to be fixed by the trial court. This shall however, be subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- payable to respondents/plaintiffs by way of demand draft. 7. It is hoped that the learned trial court shall take steps to expedite the conclusion of the trial. ---------0.B.S.0------------