JUDGMENT 1.Parties through their counsel. 2. In response to the notice issued on 24.7.2014, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 vehemently contended that ample opportunities were granted to the petitioners/plaintiffs to adduce the evidence, but the evidence was not produced. The applications made by the petitioners were ultimately rejected and the case was fixed for further proceedings on 28.7.2014. 3. Therefore, no fault can be found in the order passed by the court below. 4. Such a submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is correct and normally this Court would not have entertained the present writ petition nor would have exercised its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, but keeping in view the fact that the suit had remained pending right from 1997 up till now and attempts were not made by the defendants as well to get the said suit decided expeditiously, it would be appropriate to grant only one opportunity to the petitioners to adduce evidence. 5. However, to compensate unnecessary burdening of the court and to litigating parties, the petitioner would be liable to pay exemplary cost. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 13.3.2014 and 28.7.2014, so far as closure of right of adducing evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs is concerned, are hereby set aside on payment of cost of Rs. 5000/­ (rupees five thousand only). The petitioners will be granted only one opportunity by the trial court on a date to be fixed by it to adduce the entire evidence, failing which no further opportunity would be available to the petitioners/plaintiffs to adduce the evidence. After recording of the evidence or if the petitioners fail to produce the evidence, the trial court will decide the suit on the basis of material available on record within a period of three months from the said date. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.