https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277061 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. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Nov 2018 08:27:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277061 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277061