Closure of evidence for repeated non-compliance justified dismissal where plaintiffs failed to prove their claim.

Repeated failure to file affidavits, lead evidence, and comply with imposed costs after multiple opportunities justified closure of the plaintiffs' evidence. The Court applied the principle that procedural latitude cannot be abused through unjustified adjournments or continued non-compliance, particularly where effective progress of the suit is affected. As the plaintiffs adduced no evidence in support of their claim, they failed to discharge the burden of proof. The evidence was therefore closed and the suit was liable to be dismissed for want of proof.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs, after repeated defaults in filing their evidence and paying costs despite several opportunities, were entitled to further indulgence, and whether the suit could be dismissed for failure to lead evidence.

Analysis: The plaintiffs were granted multiple opportunities over a prolonged period to file their affidavits and lead evidence, but they failed to do so and also did not comply with the cost imposed. The Court applied the principle that litigants cannot abuse procedural latitude by seeking repeated adjournments without justifiable cause. In light of the continued non-compliance and the need for effective progress in the suit, the Court held that the plaintiffs' evidence was liable to be closed. Since the plaintiffs had not adduced evidence to support their claim, they failed to discharge the burden cast upon them.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs were not entitled to any further opportunity to lead evidence, the evidence was closed, and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party, after repeated opportunities and imposition of costs, fails to lead evidence without sufficient justification, the court may close the evidence and dismiss the claim for failure to discharge the burden of proof.

---