ORDER : 1. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs before the Court below, have filed the present petition in this Court challenging order dated 28.05.2018 passed by the learned Court below, whereby application filed for review of order dated 13.11.2017, whereby evidence of the plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court, has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction on 03.04.1999. While the evidence of the petitioner was being led and as per the court record, the case was fixed on 13.11.2017 but the counsel for the plaintiffs wrongly noted the same as 14.11.2017, hence on the date fixed, evidence could not be produced. As a result of which, learned Court below closed the evidence of the plaintiffs. Application for review of the order was filed after the aforesaid order came to the knowledge of the petitioners/plaintiffs on the next date of hearing i.e. 22.12.2017. The same was dismissed. 3. Assailing the aforesaid order it was submitted that the petitioners were not able to lead evidence on the date fixed only for the reason that wrong date of hearing was noted otherwise, there was no intention as such not to conclude the evidence. Immediately when the aforesaid order of closure of evidence came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs, they filed application for review of the order. Learned Court below has wrongly rejected the review application. The Court should have considered the fact that the procedure is handmade of justice and substantive relief to a party should not be denied only because of one default. In case, one opportunity is granted, the petitioners will conclude their entire evidence at their own risk and responsibility. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the entire effort of the petitioners is to harass the respondents. In the suit filed way back in the year 1999, in which issues were framed on 27.12.2002, the plaintiffs could not conclude their evidence even in last 15 years. It was a result of extra indulgence granted by the Court below that the petitioners were able to delay the decision of the suit. As a result of pendency of litigation, the respondents, who had purchased the land long back, have not been able to enjoy its fruits. It was the duty of the counsel to have noted correct date. It was a result of extra indulgence granted by the Court below that the petitioners were able to delay the decision of the suit. As a result of pendency of litigation, the respondents, who had purchased the land long back, have not been able to enjoy its fruits. It was the duty of the counsel to have noted correct date. In case of failure only he has to suffer. There is presumption of correctness of the orders passed by the Courts. Even if, claim made by the petitioners that wrongly date of hearing was noted as 14.11.2017 instead of 13.11.2017, is considered, the application filed for review of the order in December, 2017 was highly belated as no plea could be taken that he came to know about the order later on. It was duty of the counsel to have enquired on 14.11.2017 about the proceedings which had taken place on 13.11.2017, the date for which the case was noted by counsel for the plaintiffs. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. Brief facts, which are not in dispute, are that a suit for permanent and prohibitory injunction was filed by the petitioners on 03.04.1999. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed on 27.12.2002. Ever since then, till such time evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs was closed by order of the Court below on 13.11.2017, despite numerous opportunities, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not been able to conclude their evidence. It was a long rope of about 15 years already granted by the Court below to the petitioners/plaintiffs to conclude their evidence. On 13.11.2017, the learned Court below passed the following order vide which the evidence of the plaintiffs/petitioners was closed:- “Plaintiff not present in person or through counsel. No any witness for plaintiff is present despite being direction of the Court, failing which necessary order will follow. Perused the interim orders dated 9-10-2017 and 23.10.2017. The plaintiff has failed to bring any evidence/witness before the Court as directed, hence the evidence for plaintiff is ordered to be closed. Let file shall come up for evidence of defendants. Put up on 22/12/2017.” (sic) 7. Perused the interim orders dated 9-10-2017 and 23.10.2017. The plaintiff has failed to bring any evidence/witness before the Court as directed, hence the evidence for plaintiff is ordered to be closed. Let file shall come up for evidence of defendants. Put up on 22/12/2017.” (sic) 7. It was claimed that the counsel for the plaintiffs had noted the date as 14.11.2017 instead of 13.11.2017, hence, was unable to produce any evidence on the date fixed, but the fact remains that even immediately after 14.11.2017, no action was taken by the petitioners/plaintiffs in case the cause sought to be shown by them was genuine. They waited till next date of hearing in the case which was fixed as 22.12.2017. It was only thereafter application was filed seeking review of the order passed by the Court below on 13.11.2017. The date on which that application was filed is not evident, either from the application filed by the petitioners for review of the order or from the order passed by the Court below. 8. The facts as mentioned in the application filed to seek review of order dated 13.11.2017 show that the petitioners/plaintiffs had hardly led any evidence in 15 years. The suit remained pending for their evidence. Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 of the application, in which details of the evidence sought to be produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs have been given, are reproduced hereunder:- “4. That the plaintiffs witness Omkar Nath was cross examined on 19-05-17. That the other witnesses as per the list Goverdhan Singh as expired 6 years back, Munshi Ram is on bed & is not in a position to come this Learned Court for recording his statement, Govind Ram Takayia has also expired on 11-07-2017 & Balbhadur Singh is out of Station. 5. That the plaintififs want to record the statement of 4 other witnesses 1. Surinder Singh Chib S/o Sh. Guran Ditrta R/o Purkhoo P.O. Domana Tehsil & Distt. Jammu 2. Rakehs Singh S/o Late Sh. Atam Singh R/o Purkhoo P.O. Domana Tehsil & Distt. Jammu 3. Babu Ram S/o Late Sh. Bindru Ram R/o Purkhoo P.O.Domana Tehsil Bhalwal Distt. Jammu 4. Devi Dass S/o Late Sh. Duni Chand Ram R/o Purkhoo P.O. Domana Tehsil Bhalwal Distt. Jammu other than the list witnesses. Jammu 2. Rakehs Singh S/o Late Sh. Atam Singh R/o Purkhoo P.O. Domana Tehsil & Distt. Jammu 3. Babu Ram S/o Late Sh. Bindru Ram R/o Purkhoo P.O.Domana Tehsil Bhalwal Distt. Jammu 4. Devi Dass S/o Late Sh. Duni Chand Ram R/o Purkhoo P.O. Domana Tehsil Bhalwal Distt. Jammu other than the list witnesses. That the plaintiffs have prepared the affidavits of the above mentioned 4 witnesses & is ready to file today even if the Learned Court directs & will also bring them dasti in one go for Cross-examination when the learned Court directs.” 9. Abuse of process by the litigants was adversely commented by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Cotex v. Tirgun Auto Plast (P) Ltd., (2011) 9 SCC 678 . It was observed that adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. The adjournments should not to be granted at the drop of hat. The mere fact that in the case in hand, evidence of the plaintiff was allowed to continue for 15 years, shows that adjournments were granted totally in violation of the principles laid down for the purposes. Relevant paras 15 and 16 thereof are extracted below:- “15. Second, and equally important, the High Court upset the concurrent judgment and decree of the two courts on misplaced sympathy and non - existent justification. The High Court observed that the stakes in the suit being very high, the plaintiff should not be non-suited on the basis of no evidence. But, who is to be blamed for this lapse? It is the plaintiff alone. As a matter of fact, the trial court had given more than sufficient opportunity to the plaintiff to produce evidence in support of its case. As noticed above, after the issues were framed on July 19, 2006, on three occasions, the trial court fixed the matter for the plaintiff’s evidence but on none of these dates any evidence was let in by it. What should the court do in such circumstances? Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? What should the court do in such circumstances? Is the court obliged to give adjournment after adjournment merely because the stakes are high in the dispute? Should the court be a silent spectator and leave control of the case to a party to the case who has decided not to take the case forward? It is sad, but true, that the litigants seek - and the courts grant - adjournments at the drop of the hat. In the cases where the judges are little pro-active and refuse to accede to the requests of unnecessary adjournments, the litigants deploy all sorts of methods in protracting the litigation. It is not surprising that civil disputes drag on and on. The misplaced sympathy and indulgence by the appellate and revisional courts compound the malady further. The case in hand is a case of such misplaced sympathy. It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The courts, particularly trial courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit. 16. No litigant has a right to abuse the procedure provided in the CPC. Adjournments have grown like cancer corroding the entire body of justice delivery system. It is true that cap on adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit provided in proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC is not mandatory and in a suitable case, on justifiable cause, the court may grant more than three adjournments to a party for its evidence but ordinarily the cap provided in the proviso to Order XVII Rule 1 CPC should be maintained. When we say justifiable cause’ what we mean to say is, a cause which is not only `sufficient cause’ as contemplated in sub-rule (1) of Order XVII CPC but a cause which makes the request for adjournment by a party during the hearing of the suit beyond three adjournments unavoidable and sort of a compelling necessity like sudden illness of the litigant or the witness or the lawyer; death in the family of any one of them; natural calamity like floods, earthquake, etc. in the area where any of these persons reside; an accident involving the litigant or the witness or the lawyer on way to the court and such like cause. The list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. However, the absence of the lawyer or his non-availability because of professional work in other court or elsewhere or on the ground of strike call or the change of a lawyer or the continuous illness of the lawyer (the party whom he represents must then make alternative arrangement well in advance) or similar grounds will not justify more than three adjournments to a party during the hearing of the suit. The past conduct of a party in the conduct of the proceedings is an important circumstance which the courts must keep in view whenever a request for adjournment is made. A party to the suit is not at liberty to proceed with the trial at its leisure and pleasure and has no right to determine when the evidence would be let in by it or the matter should be heard. The parties to a suit - whether plaintiff or defendant - must cooperate with the court in ensuring the effective work on the date of hearing for which the matter has been fixed. If they don’t, they do so at their own peril. Insofar as present case is concerned, if the stakes were high, the plaintiff ought to have been more serious and vigilant in prosecuting the suit and producing its evidence. If despite three opportunities, no evidence was let in by the plaintiff, in our view, it deserved no sympathy in second appeal in exercise of power under Section 100 CPC. We find no justification at all for the High Court in upsetting the concurrent judgment of the courts below. The High Court was clearly in error in giving the plaintiff an opportunity to produce evidence when no justification for that course existed.” 10. Noticing that unnecessarily delays were being caused by various stake holders in the judicial system, especially in the civil litigation, Hon’ble the Supreme Court had issued certain guidelines. If those guidelines are followed the existing system of dispensation of justice especially in civil cases, there can be drastic improvement. But the fact remains that even after the judgment was delivered about eight years back not much improvement has been seen. If those guidelines are followed the existing system of dispensation of justice especially in civil cases, there can be drastic improvement. But the fact remains that even after the judgment was delivered about eight years back not much improvement has been seen. The guidelines as given by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Ramrameshwari Devi and others vs. Nirmala Devi and others, 2011 (8) SCC 249 , paras 52 and 53 of the said judgment, are extracted below:- “The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed? In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials. A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed. B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Code. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice. C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings. D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits. E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed. F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed. F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court. G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice. H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice. I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided. J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed. 53. According to us, these aforementioned steps may help the courts to drastically improve the existing system of administration of civil litigation in our Courts. No doubt, it would take some time for the courts, litigants and the advocates to follow the aforesaid steps, but once it is observed across the country, then prevailing system of adjudication of civil courts is bound to improve.” Reference can also be made to judgment of the Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Gayathri vs. M.Girish, 2016 (14) SCC 142 , which is in the same line. 11. In the case in hand is unique, which is a simple suit for injunction, proceedings are pending since 1993. Fifteen years have gone by after the issues were framed and the plaintiffs have not concluded their evidence. 11. In the case in hand is unique, which is a simple suit for injunction, proceedings are pending since 1993. Fifteen years have gone by after the issues were framed and the plaintiffs have not concluded their evidence. It shows total insensitiveness even on the part of the court below in not taking care of a suit pending for more than fifteen years. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Noor Mohammad vs. Jethanand and another, 2013 (5) SCC 202 , observed that inordinate delay in disposal of cases by the Courts gradually decline the public confidence in judicial system. It is their faith only which keeps the system alive. Access to speedy justice is regarded as a human right. Relevant paras there from are extracted below:- “16. A few lines from illustrious Frankfurter is fruitful to recapitulate: “I think a person who throughout his life is nothing but a practicing lawyer fulfils a very great and essential function in the life of society. Think of the responsibilities on the one hand and the satisfaction on the other, to be a lawyer in the true sense.” 31. In Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and another v. State of Gujarat and others[18], emphasizing on the duty of Court to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, this Court has poignantly held as follows: - “35. ...Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice – often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the “majesty of the law”. Due administration of justice has always been viewed as a continuous process, not confined to determination of the particular case, protecting its ability to function as a court of law in the future as in the case before it.” Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear as day that everyone involved in the system of dispensation of justice has to inspire the confidence of the common man in the effectiveness of the judicial system. Sustenance of faith has to be treated as spinal sans sympathy or indulgence. If someone considers the task to be herculean, the same has to be performed with solemnity, for faith is the “elan vital” of our system.” 12. The enunciation of law by Hon’ble the High Court, as referred to above, is considered. Sustenance of faith has to be treated as spinal sans sympathy or indulgence. If someone considers the task to be herculean, the same has to be performed with solemnity, for faith is the “elan vital” of our system.” 12. The enunciation of law by Hon’ble the High Court, as referred to above, is considered. The only inescapable conclusion is that the order passed by the learned court below closing the evidence of the petitioner by order of the Court does not call for any interference by this Court. The petitioner-plaintiff had delayed a simple suit for injunction for about two decades which not only resulted in harassment to the defendant but avoidable wastage of courts time which could be better utilized for taking up other cases, which are waiting in queue. Insensibility of the court below is also writ large as in the suit for injunction, which is pending for more than 1 ½ decade, the court had been granting adjournments generously as if the suit was not to be decided. Such types of cases certainly lead to erosion of faith of the general public, especially litigants in the judicial system and it needs to be taken care of. For the purposes time and again guidelines have been issued by the Hon’ble the Supreme Court which should be scrupulously followed. 13. For the reasons mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed. 14. The Registrar Judicial of this Court is directed to obtain photocopies of the zimini orders passed in the suit in question from the court below, so as to examine as to what were the reasons for delay of trial of the suit. If the orders are in language other than in Hindi or English, the same be got translated and be placed before the Administrate Judge concerned.