JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioners-plaintiffs have laid this writ petition assailing impugned order dated 29th of October 2013 (Annex.4) passed by the Addl. District Judge, Bhimnal, District Jalore (for short, learned trial Court), whereby their evidence is closed. 2. The facts in brief, giving rise to this writ petition are that a civil suit for declaration under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 was filed by the petitioners against respondents for cancellation of sale-deed in respect of agricultural land situated at village Khejadiyali, Patwar Halka Khejadiyali, Tehsil Sanchore in Khasra No.1842/1237 measuring 20 bighas 3 biswas, which was executed by respondent No.2 Ganesha in favour of respondent No.1 Smt. Pappu Devi. 3. As per the averments in the plaint, alienation of the agricultural land of certain Khasra, which includes Khasra No. 1842/1237, was not permissible without prior approval from the competent authority in accordance with the Notification issued by the Central Government dated 12th of March 1996. The allegation of the petitioners in the plaint was that despite the fact that notification dated 12th of March 1996 was in vogue, respondents have entered into the sale transaction and got the sale deed registered and therefore the same is liable to be declared as null and void. 4. The suit filed by the petitioners was contested by the first respondent by filing written statement raising certain objections about maintainability of the suit. 5. On the basis of pleadings of parties, issues were framed for adjudication of the suit and the matter was posted on 03.09.2011 for recording evidence of the petitioners-plaintiffs but despite granting 7 adjournments, the petitioners have not tendered their evidence, and therefore, by the impugned order their evidence was closed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Narendra S. Rajpurohit, has argued that the petitioners are entitled for one more opportunity in the interest of justice, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on following legal precedents: (2001) 9 SCC 117 (Kewal Krishan v. Harnek Singh (2003) 5 SCC 641 (B. Janakiramaiah Chetty v. A.K. Parthasarthi & Ors. 2009 WLC (UC) Raj 265 (Nanu v. Nand Ram etc.) 2009 WLC (UC) Raj.595 (Radhey Shyam Dhoot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 8. 2009 WLC (UC) Raj 265 (Nanu v. Nand Ram etc.) 2009 WLC (UC) Raj.595 (Radhey Shyam Dhoot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 8. From the materials available on record it is crystal clear that the Court proceeded against the respondents and permitted the petitioners-plaintiffs to adduce their evidence but even after availing seven opportunities, the petitioners have not produced their evidence to substantiate the averments contained in the plaint. Looking to the nature of the suit, which according to the petitioners was of a great significance, it was desirable from the petitioners to have shown promptness in adducing evidence. The petitioners were required to tender evidence and a simple affidavit of a witness was sufficient to prove their case, which they have set up in the plaint. However, there was a total callousness on part of the petitioners in pursuing the matter. There cannot be two opinions that when substantial justice is pitted against technicalities, substantial justice must prevail but a total callousness and apathy on the part of a litigant cannot be overlooked by this Court. The legal precedents, on which the learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance, are factually distinguishable for the simple reason that even the plaintiffs themselves have not appeared in the witness box or tendered affidavit in the form of evidence. From the proceedings drawn by the learned trial Court it can very well be inferred that the suit has been pursued by the petitioners-plaintiffs in an absolutely casual and cavalier manner which is also evident even from the cause title of the suit in which defendant No.2 contains the names of five sellers who have been made party as defendant No.2 jointly. 9. On the face of it, when the framework of the suit itself is defective, then how summons can be issued to five incumbents jointly intimating about institution of the civil suit. On perusal of the suit, there remains no doubt that the petitioners/plaintiffs were not seriously concerned to pursue the suit and institution of the suit was an empty formality. If according to the petitioners issue involved in the suit was important then why it has not been pursued with utmost urgency and seriousness is also a matter of grave and serious concern. 10. If according to the petitioners issue involved in the suit was important then why it has not been pursued with utmost urgency and seriousness is also a matter of grave and serious concern. 10. Yet another facet of the case is that the order impugned was passed on 29th of October 2013 and the present writ petition has been filed after a lapse of eight months and there is no plausible explanation for such inordinate delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. 11. In this view of the matter, taking into account the conduct of the petitioners, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed summarily.Petition Allowed. *******