1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.441 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.263 OF 2009 M/s.Chairman, ..Applicants Mangalwedha Brahat Vivid Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Mangalwedha & anr. V/s. Nandkishore Gopilal Marda ..Respondent Mr.Priyal G. Sarda, Advocate, for the Applicants Mr.U.B.Nighot i/b.Mr.Hamid Mulla, Advocate, for the Respondent CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010 P.C. . This Civil Revision Application is directed against the concurrent findings of the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge holding that the Applicant was liable to be evicted for his failure to pay rent due and demanded. The learned Trial Judge had observed in paragraph 7 of his Judgment that the Defendants had preferred not to adduce any evidence and therefore, suit proceeded under 2 Order XVII, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The learned Counsel for the Applicants sought to rely on Judgment of Delhi High Court in the matter of Jagannath Chauhan v. S.C.Nanda, reported in AIR 2003 DELHI 394 and drew my attention to the paragraph 8 of the Judgment which is reproduced as under :- 8. The terms of this provision are simple and plain. It becomes operative only in a situation where parties have failed to produce evidence after time was granted to them to do so. It is so because parties have a value right to prove their case by leading evidence. This right can't be taken away by the Court save otherwise in case of their failure to do so and such failure was required to be recorded in the order leading to the closure of evidence. It is only then that the Court can proceed to decide the suit after doing away with the evidence of parties. The Court, by no stretch of imagination, therefore, could decide the suit straightway without affording the parties a chance to lead the evidence and discarding their evidence. It is not that the Court is powerless to decide a suit without evidence. It enjoys this power where a claim is admitted under Order 12, Rule 6, CPC. 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicants 3 was asked as to whether his client had sought an adjournment for tendering the evidence before the Trial Court. He answered in the affirmative. If after an adjournment was granted the Applicant failed to tender evidence he must blame himself. The learned Trial Judge was not expected to wait interminably and go on giving opportunities to the Applicant. Here the Applicant, after having been given an adjournment, failed to tender evidence and now has a grievance that an opportunity was not given to him. Observations in the Judgment relied on do not help the Applicant. There is no merit in the Civil Revision Application which is therefore dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of Civil Revision Application, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.) 4