JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Abu Road (District Sirohi) whereby application filed by the petitioner-defendant under Order 9, Rule 7 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent-plaintiff filed suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent against her, in which, the petitioner-defendant filed written-statement. Thereafter, the trial Court proceeded to record evidence of the respondent-plaintiff after framing issues. The evidence of the respondent-plaintiff was completed on 3.2.2011. Thereafter, although so many opportunities were given to produce evidence but due to unavoidable circumstances till 13.9.2011 the evidence was not produced by the petitioner-defendant, therefore, the trial Court closed the opportunity to lead evidence in defence vide order dated 13.9.2011. 3. The petitioner-defendant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7 , read with Section 151, C.P.C. to recall or quash the order dated 30.9.2011 but the application filed by the petitioner-defendant has been rejected vide impugned order dated 30.9.2011. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned deserves to be quashed for the reason that the application has been decided without considering the material facts available on record that the petitioner due to sickness could not remain present before the trial Court on the relevant date. It is also submitted that as per the settled proposition of law at least ample opportunity is required to be granted to the party for deciding the controversy but this aspect of the matter has not been considered properly, therefore, due to order impugned the petitioners are suffering irreparable loss and it is prayed that impugned order dated 30.9.2011 may be quashed and trial Court may be directed to provide opportunity to lead evidence. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that sufficient opportunities were given to the defendant-petitioners to lead evidence but, due to negligence, order dated 13.9.2011 is passed on account of non-appearance of the defendant-petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that sufficient opportunities were given to the defendant-petitioners to lead evidence but, due to negligence, order dated 13.9.2011 is passed on account of non-appearance of the defendant-petitioners. Therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. After taking into consideration entire facts of the case and the fact that there is material on record to show that on the relevant date the defendant-petitioner was not in a position to attend the Court, so also, soon after order was passed on 13.9.2011 the defendant-petitioner filed application on 27.9.2011, therefore, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to quash the order dated 13.9.2011. 7. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. Order dated 13.9.2011 is quashed and set aside with the direction to the petitioner-defendant to lead their evidence on the next date of hearing i.e., 9.12.2011 positively. The Trial Court shall grant opportunity to petitioners to lead evidence on the date and, thereafter, proceed in the matter.Writ Petition Allowed. *******