JUDGMENT : - Hon'ble LOHRA, J.—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 respondent No.1 & 3 for cancellation of sale-deed in respect of agricultural land situated at village Khejadiyali, Patwar Halka Khejadiyali, Tehsil Sanchor in Khasra No.1237/1830 measuring 20 bighas, which was executed by respondent Ganesha in favour of respondent Ramjan Khan. 3. As per the averments in the plaint, alienation of the agricultural land of certain Khasra, which includes Khasra No. 1237/1830 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 but none appeared on behalf of respondent Ganesha despite service of summons and therefore the learned trial Court proceeded ex-parte against him. As none of the respondents appeared, the Court proceeded exparte against them on 2nd of November 2010 and the matter was posted for recording ex-parte evidence of the petitioner-plaintiffs but despite granting 13 adjournments, the petitioners have not tendered their ex-parte evidence, and therefore, by the impugned order their evidence was closed. 5. 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: 1. (2001) 9 SCC 117 (Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh 2. (2003) 5 SCC 641 (B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs. A.K. Parthasarthi & Ors. 3. 2009 WLC (UC) Raj 265 (Nanu vs. Nand Ram etc.) 4. 2009 WLC (UC) Raj. 595 (Radhey Shyam Dhoot vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6. (2001) 9 SCC 117 (Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh 2. (2003) 5 SCC 641 (B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs. A.K. Parthasarthi & Ors. 3. 2009 WLC (UC) Raj 265 (Nanu vs. Nand Ram etc.) 4. 2009 WLC (UC) Raj. 595 (Radhey Shyam Dhoot vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record. 7. From the materials available on record it is crystal clear that the Court proceeded ex-parte against the respondents and permitted the petitioner-plaintiffs to adduce their ex-parte evidence but even after availing 13 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 ex-parte 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 ex-parte 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. 8. 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. 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. 9. Even while preferring the writ petition, respondent No. 2 Pappu Devi has been impleaded as a party without any justifiable reason inasmuch as she was not party to the litigation before the learned trial Court. 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, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.