JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 27th August, 2015, whereby, the application submitted by the petitioners to allow them to lead evidence was dismissed. It was precisely on the ground that sufficient chances were given to the petitioners to lead evidence. 2. Learned counsel submits that only three chances were given to lead evidence thus it is not that petitioners had taken several chances to lead evidence. The petitioners themselves are plaintiffs in the case. In view of above, one more chance may be given to lead evidence, which may be even on an appropriate cost. 3. A reference of judgment of this Court in the case of Trilok Chand v. Smt. Shanti Devi & Anr. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15931/2012 decided on 03rd December, 2012 has been given where in the similar circumstances, chance to lead evidence was allowed thus issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment supra. 4. It is also stated that on the date when evidence was closed, the petitioners were present though came late to the court due to ailment of the son of sister-in-law. An application was submitted in the court on the same date. Taking aforesaid into consideration, the writ petition may be accepted. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The order sheets of the court below show that after filing suit in the year 2009, the issues were framed on 02nd November, 2012. The petitioners were asked to lead evidence on 17th December, 2012 and after recording the order sheet on the aforesaid date, the petitioners produced affidavit of Rajkumar with the copy to the defendants. The petitioners were directed to produce witness on the next date for cross examination. On the next date, petitioners prayed for time and on 09th September, 2013, last opportunity was given at the cost of Rs. 300/-. On 28th October, 2013, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed but then subsequent order sheet shows time sought for and given to the petitioners to lead evidence pending consideration of the application. On 17th January, 2015, the application aforesaid was allowed and the petitioners were asked to lead evidence on 11th March, 2015. 300/-. On 28th October, 2013, an application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC was filed but then subsequent order sheet shows time sought for and given to the petitioners to lead evidence pending consideration of the application. On 17th January, 2015, the application aforesaid was allowed and the petitioners were asked to lead evidence on 11th March, 2015. On 11th March, 2015 also, evidence was not led but in the interest of justice, last opportunity was given to the petitioners to lead evidence, otherwise, to be treated as closed automatically. 7. On the next date i.e. 09th April, 2015, again, evidence was not led, however, time was given in the interest of justice at the cost of Rs. 100/-. On 30th May, 2015, the Presiding Officer was not present thus case was deferred and it is stated that both the witnesses were present on the next date. On 07th July, 2015, again, witnesses were not produced thus last opportunity was given at the cost of Rs. 500/-. 8. The aforesaid shows that on three different occasions, cost was imposed on the petitioners. It was initially Rs. 300/- followed by Rs. 100/- and lastly Rs. 500/-. On 03rd August, 2015 again, witnesses were not produced and, thereby, the evidence was closed. The fact aforesaid shows as to how the suit has been dragged for evidence since November, 2012 till closure of evidence. 9. It is not that petitioners were given only three chances to lead evidence but three chances were given on cost and otherwise several chances were given without imposing cost. The chances after acceptance of application under Order 7 Rule 14 CPC alone has been counted by the petitioners though the entire period has to be taken into consideration. Even if the chances subsequent to the order on the application is also counted, the petitioners were given sufficient chances thereupon also and, out of it, one was at the cost of Rs. 100/- and other at the cost of Rs. 500/-. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find that petitioners were vigilant to lead evidence. It is also stated that when evidence was closed, witnesses were present and application was filed for it. 100/- and other at the cost of Rs. 500/-. 10. In the light of the aforesaid, I do not find that petitioners were vigilant to lead evidence. It is also stated that when evidence was closed, witnesses were present and application was filed for it. However, it is admitted that the said application was filed after the order and therein also, reason of absence is not of self ailment but due to ailment of son of sister-in-law and as to why other witness had not come, is not being explained thus petitioners have taken the court as granted for opportunity to lead evidence. It results in delay for disposal of litigation and, for which, blame is made on the courts. 11. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. So far as the judgment in the case of Trilok Chand (supra) is concerned, it was decided on its own facts thus cannot be applied to the present writ petition. 12. The writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is dismissed accordingly.