JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, this Court feels that the learned first appellate Court has not thrashed out the matter in its entirety, therefore, appeal is admitted on following substantial question of law: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned trial Court has rightly closed the evidence treating the opportunities for adducing evidence to the appellants as umpteen and the learned first appellate Court has rightly addressed and embarked on the vital issue in the light of Order 17, Rule 1 CPC while upholding the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court? 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally and is being disposed of at this stage. 4. Plaintiffs-appellants have laid this second appeal under Section 100 CPC feeling disdained with the impugned judgment and decree dated 9th of April 2013 passed Addl. District Judge, Sujangarh (for short, 'learned first appellate Court'), whereby learned first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 9th of March 2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) No.1, Sujangarh (for short, 'learned trial Court'), whereby the right of evidence of appellants was closed and the suit filed by original plaintiff No.2 Late Ram Lal and his deceased father Bajranglal was dismissed on the ground that plaintiffs had not been able to produce their evidence. The learned trial Court observed that the plaintiffs were given umpteen opportunities to produce their evidence but they failed to produce the witnesses and also not bothered to appear in the witness-box. 5. Being dismayed with the said verdict of the learned trial Court, the appellants preferred first appeal before the first appellate Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the learned appellate Court fully concurring with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court has also dismissed the appeal of plaintiffs-appellants. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs, ancestors of present appellants, instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondent Municipal Board, inter-alia, claiming themselves owner of the premises situated in Ward No.31 for which Patta was issued on 22.06.1946 mentioning the neighbourhood in the plaint. 6. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the plaintiffs, ancestors of present appellants, instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction against respondent Municipal Board, inter-alia, claiming themselves owner of the premises situated in Ward No.31 for which Patta was issued on 22.06.1946 mentioning the neighbourhood in the plaint. It was averred that one of the pillar of the house broke as a camel cart dashed against it and for renovating the premises construction was being carried out, however, false complaints of encroachment were made to the Municipal Board, Sujangarh whereupon notice was issued by the Municipal Board which was replied giving details about carrying out renovation work on pattasud land. It is further averred in the plaint that on 11.07.1997 some officers of the Municipal Board along with police personnel entered in the premises of plaintiffs-appellants and damaged door, stone fencing etc and took away with them materials lying there costing Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to the plaintiffs, as the security of the premises was at stake there being no boundary, it was necessary to construct boundary wall and install gate but the respondents did not permit the plaintiffs to carry out the construction work as such in the suit, plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction against respondent Municipal Board restraining it from interfering with the construction work on their Pattasud land. 7. On behalf of respondent Municipal Board written statement to the suit was filed refuting the averments of the plaint and it was stated that plaintiffs were raising construction on public land for which a notice was sent to the plaintiffs on 05.07.1997 and thereafter construction was got stopped. According to respondent Municipal Board, the Patta submitted by plaintiffs was not in their names but was in the name of someone else and no separate sale deed was submitted by them rather it was a case of encroachment by the plaintiffs on public land. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the rival parties, learned trial Court framed two issues for determination; first in respect of ownership of disputed Nohara of Ashapasa, and second about encroachment on public land. The burden to prove issue No.1 was on plaintiffs and that of issue No.2 on defendant Municipal Board but the plaintiffs did not tender evidence despite opportunities. The burden to prove issue No.1 was on plaintiffs and that of issue No.2 on defendant Municipal Board but the plaintiffs did not tender evidence despite opportunities. The application moved by plaintiffs under Section 151 for summoning patta and sale deed before the learned trial Court was rejected and thereafter on 9th March 2007 closing their evidence the suit was also dismissed. 9. Feeling dismayed with the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court, appellants approached the learned First appellate Court and the learned First appellate Court, after examining the matter fully concurred with the findings and conclusions of the learned trial Court by dismissing the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for appellants-plaintiffs, Mr. Sandeep Shah has argued that the plaintiffs were not allowed reasonable opportunity to adduce their evidence inasmuch as on many occasions, the matter was deferred either due to absence of the Presiding Officer of the Court, or seeking adjournment on behalf of plaintiffs and sometimes due to the absence of lawyers as they were abstaining from work. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, it cannot be said that plaintiffs deliberately not tendered their evidence. Mr. Shah further submits that the appellants ventilated the grievances in the suit that the defendant Municipal Board is unnecessarily interfering with the construction being carried out on their pattasud and therefore, learned trial Court ought to have taken a liberal and lenient view by allowing some more time to the plaintiffs for producing their evidence. Mr. Shah submits that this vital aspect has not been examined by the learned First appellate Court while concurring with the findings and conclusion of the learned trial Court. The sum and substance of submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that both the Courts below have alienated the basic tenets of law that when technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the endeavour of the Court should be to impart substantial justice. With these submissions learned counsel would contend that the substantial questions of law involve in the present matter requires favourable adjudication vis-a-vis appellants. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant-respondent Municipal Board Mr. Bheem Arora has supported the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. With these submissions learned counsel would contend that the substantial questions of law involve in the present matter requires favourable adjudication vis-a-vis appellants. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for defendant-respondent Municipal Board Mr. Bheem Arora has supported the judgments rendered by both the Courts below. According to the submission of the learned counsel for respondent, appellants were provided umpteen opportunities to tender their evidence but they failed to substantiate their case by tendering evidence and therefore, it cannot be said that both the learned Courts below have acted contrary to law in passing the impugned concurring verdicts rather the trial Court and the first appellate Court were justified in rejecting the suit and appeal of the plaintiffs-appellants. The learned counsel attempted to oppose the appeal by urging that the substantial question of law framed deserves answer in favour of the respondent. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties & perused the impugned judgments. 13. Upon examining the matter in its entirety and considering the substantial question of law involved in the matter, in my opinion, learned trial Court in forfeiting the right of the appellants to tender evidence has acted in a hot haste manner in view of the fact that in the instant case issues were framed by trial Court on 07.07.2006 and matter was posted for evidence of plaintiffs to 14.08.2007 but on that day the Presiding Officer was on leave as such the matter was fixed for 25.09.2006 and thereafter on 17.10.2006 on which dates time was sought by plaintiffs. Later on, due to the Advocates abstaining themselves from work, the matter could not proceed further and subsequently it was fixed for 19.02.2007. On that day, an application was moved by plaintiffs under Section 151 CPC for summoning Patta and sale deed in respect of the premises in question from the Court of Addl. District Judge where the original documents were filed by plaintiffs in some other suit. The application was dismissed by trial Court on 23.02.2007 observing that plaintiffs could file certified copies of the public documents. District Judge where the original documents were filed by plaintiffs in some other suit. The application was dismissed by trial Court on 23.02.2007 observing that plaintiffs could file certified copies of the public documents. Thereafter, the matter was again fixed on 09.03.2007 however certified copies of the documents could not be produced on that date as the same could not be obtained till that date and the plaintiff alive then had to rush to Jaipur on 09.03.2007 due to indisposition of his brother-in-law and in such circumstances opportunity was sought for submitting evidence but the learned trial Court in want of evidence of the appellants closed evidence of plaintiffs-appellants and dismissed the suit filed by plaintiffs-appellants. From the aforesaid chain of events it is clearly evident that on very few occasions time was sought on behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants and on other occasions either the Presiding Officer was on leave or the Advocates were abstaining themselves from work. In such circumstances, in my considered opinion, some latitude is required to be given to the plaintiffs-appellants for producing their evidence so as to impart substantial justice. It is true that the appellants availed many opportunities for producing their evidence but the fact remains that the plaintiff had good and sufficient reason for his absence particularly on 09.03.2007 when the evidence was closed and the suit was dismissed as the plaintiff No.2 who was alive then had been to Jaipur on that day on account of indisposition of his brother-in-law but this particular aspect has not been given due credence by the learned trial Court while dismissing the suit filed by plaintiffs-appellants. The learned first appellate Court has also not bothered to examine the lis involved in the matter in its entirety and dismissed the appeal in a cursory manner. 14. Well it is true that if a litigating party is totally callous and negligent in pursuing a cause, Courts are well within their rights to close their evidence and non-suit a litigant but then in the matter of taking evidence of a litigant, Court is required to adopt a pragmatic approach to farther the interest of justice and as far as possible, if sufficient cause is shown by the party for not producing evidence, reasonable opportunity can be given for producing evidence. It is an admitted fact that learned trial Court has non-suited the plaintiffs-appellants for the reason that no evidence was tendered on their behalf and the learned first appellate Court has, thereafter, affirmed the said judgment also for want of evidence of the appellants. Therefore, it is in the fitness of things to answer the substantial question of law framed (supra) in favour of the appellants for doing substantial justice in the matter and to prevent miscarriage of justice and that has persuaded me to reverse both the impugned judgments for allowing substantial justice to prevail. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the case deserves to be remanded to the trial Court for de novo trial from the stage of evidence and for deciding it in accordance with law by granting indulgence to the appellants for producing their evidence. 15. Accordingly, this second appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants afresh strictly in accordance with law. 16. Parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 9th September 2015. The plaintiffs-appellants may examine their witnesses within three months commencing from 9th September 2015 and thereafter defendant may also adduce evidence within three months. As the suit was instituted in the year 1997, the trial Court is expected to decide the suit as early as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of first hearing. 17. No costs.