In a suit for recovery of Rs. 4,45,260/-, instituted by the appellant in the Court constituted under The Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, leave to appear and contest the suit was granted by the learned trial Court on 06.03.2018 and on filing written statement the issues were condensed on 09.04. 2018, where-after the appellant was directed to produce the evidence. The record reveals that till 19.06.2019, i.e. the date of final adjudication, when the appellant's closed under Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. and suit was dismissed for want of evidence after granting numerous opportunities including the absolute last and final opportunities with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Despite all these efforts made by the learned trial Court the appellant did not produce the evidence leaving no option with the Court but to close its right to lead and in consequence whereof the suit was dismissed.
The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to satisfy this Court with regard to any illegality or irregularity committed by , the learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.06.2019.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer-ud-Din and others (2015 SCMR 1401 ) has already refused to grant any further opportunity to negligent and careless party to get favour for obtaining another opportunity to lead evidence, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "In the present case, as mentioned above, it is clear from the record that the appellant had availed four opportunities to produce his evidence and in two of such orders (the last in the chain) he was cautioned that such opportunity granted to him at his request shall be the last one; but still on the day when his evidence was closed in terms of Order XVII Rule 3, C.P.C. no reasonable ground was propounded for the purposes of failure to adduce the evidence and justification for further opportunity , therefore, notwithstanding that these opportunities granted to the appellant were only in a span of about 1 month and 26 days, yet his case squarely fell within the mischief of the provisions ibid and his evidence was rightly closed by the trial Court"
3. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court while B dismissing appellant's suit, therefore, this appeal having no merit stands dismissed . No order as to costs.