JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff Ishwar Singh, having been non-suited by both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal. 2. Plaintiff’s version is that defendant no.3 was owner of 03 kanals 01 marla land i.e. 61/882nd share of 44 kanals 02 marlas land and was also owner of 51 kanals 06 marlas land being 1/6th share of 307 kanals 17 marlas land described in the plaint. Out of his total share of 54 kanals 07 marlas land as aforesaid, defendant no.3 sold 37 kanals 01 marla land to defendants no.1 and 2 vide sale deed dated 19.08.2005. 3. Plaintiff filed suit to pre-empt aforesaid sale qua 16 kanals land only alleging that plaintiff and his brother defendant no.4 are tenants over the said 16 kanals land for the last more than 50 years and prior to them, their father was tenant over the said land. 4. Defendants no.1 and 2 contested the suit and denied the alleged tenancy of plaintiff and defendant no.4 and consequently, denied their preferential rights of pre-emption. 5. Defendant no.3 was proceeded ex-parte, whereas defendant no.4, in spite of putting in appearance, did not file any written statement and his defence was struck off. 6. In spite of six effective opportunities granted by the trial court to the plaintiff-appellant for his evidence, the plaintiff failed to lead any evidence whatsoever and consequently, evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court order. There being no evidence to prove the case of the plaintiff, his suit was dismissed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 29.07.2009. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned District Judge, Rohtak, vide judgment and decree dated 08.03.2010. Feeling still aggrieved, plaintiff has come up by way of instant second appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. 8. Perusal of the plaint, as shown by counsel for the plaintiffappellant, reveals that in the plaint, the plaintiff did not specify 16 kanals land sought to be pre-empted, over which tenancy of plaintiff and defendant no.4 was claimed. As noticed herein before, the total joint land is 44 kanals 02 marlas and 307 kanals 17 marlas i.e. 351 kanals 19 marlas in all. In the said total land, share of vendor – defendant no.3 was 54 kanals 07 marlas. As noticed herein before, the total joint land is 44 kanals 02 marlas and 307 kanals 17 marlas i.e. 351 kanals 19 marlas in all. In the said total land, share of vendor – defendant no.3 was 54 kanals 07 marlas. He did not sell his entire share and rather sold 37 kanals 01 marla land only. The plaintiff has not specified 16 kanals land being cultivated by him and defendant no.4 as tenants, out of the total land measuring 351 kanals 19 marlas. Consequently, even taking the plaint averments at face value, the plaintiff’s suit cannot be decreed. It cannot be ascertained as to over which 16 kanals land, out of vast area of 351 kanals 19 marlas, the plaintiff was claiming his preferential right of pre-emption. Consequently, no finding regarding tenancy of plaintiff and defendant no.4 over 16 kanals land out of the aforesaid total joint land can be recorded, nor the suit can be decreed regarding any specific 16 kanals land, nor the decree, if passed on the basis of averments in the plaint, can be executed regarding any specific 16 kanals land, out of the total joint land. 9. In addition to the aforesaid, plaintiff-appellant was granted sufficient opportunities to lead his evidence, but he failed to lead any evidence. Under Order 17 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short – CPC), only three opportunities are required to be granted to a party for its evidence. This provision, being rule of procedure, may be followed with some flexibility and not with extreme rigidity. The trial court did so. The trial court, instead of sticking to three opportunities only under the aforesaid provision, granted six effective opportunities to the plaintiff-appellant for his evidence, but in spite thereof, he failed to lead any evidence. Consequently, the trial court was left with no option but to close the evidence of the plaintiff by court order and to dismiss the suit, there being no evidence to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff. 10. Counsel for the appellant contended that since the plaintiffappellant was not present in person before the trial court, in view of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, the Court should have reverted to Order 17 Rule 2 CPC, which in turn refers to Order 9 CPC, and therefore, the Court should have dismissed the suit in default under Order 9 CPC. Counsel for the appellant contended that since the plaintiffappellant was not present in person before the trial court, in view of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, the Court should have reverted to Order 17 Rule 2 CPC, which in turn refers to Order 9 CPC, and therefore, the Court should have dismissed the suit in default under Order 9 CPC. The contention is completely misconceived and meritless. The plaintiff-appellant was duly represented by his counsel in the trial court, when evidence of the plaintiff was closed by court order and suit was dismissed under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC. The trial court committed no error in doing so. In civil suit, parties are not required to be present in person, unless so directed by the trial court. Parties can be represented by their counsel. In the instant case, the contesting parties were being represented by their counsel in the trial court, and therefore, it cannot be said that the parties were or any of them was absent before the trial court. Consequently, the trial court rightly proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC to decide the suit instead of proceeding under Urder 17 Rule 2 read with Order 9 CPC. 10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this second appeal. No question of law, much less substantial question of law, arises for adjudication in this second appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed in limine.