JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of order dated 18.11.2024, in terms whereof, the evidence of the plaintiff-petitioner has been closed. 2. Though the order dated 18.12.2024 is not appended with the petition, but, learned counsel for the petitioners handed over a copy of the same to the Court, which reads as under:- “No PWs are present despite being the fact that last opportunity was granted to plaintiff for today for concluding plaintiff's evidence. Counsel for plaintiff again sought adjournment for leading and concluding plaintiff's evidence. Prayer is considered and rejected as record shows that issues in this case were framed on 09.01.2018 and thereafter case was fixed for 12.04.2018 for recording of plaintiff's evidence since then ample of opportunities have been, granted to plaintiff for leading & concluding plaintiff's evidence but the plaintiff has failed to conclude his evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that this Civil Suit pertains to the year 2015 and it was filed in the court on 20.06.2015. This case is 9 years old case. Thus, this court is not inclined to grant any further opportunity to the plaintiff for concluding her evidence. Thus, the evidence of plaintiff is hereby closed by the order of this Court. Now the case be listed on 17.12.2024 for recording of defendant's evidence. Witnesses to be summoned for the date fixed on taking necessary steps within 7 days. File to be tabled on 17.12.2024.” 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the impugned order as well as the zimni orders appended with the petition, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. 4. It is a matter of record that more than eight opportunities stood granted to the petitioner-plaintiff to lead evidence, yet, no evidence was led. This Court has observed in more than one cases that not more than three opportunities should be granted to the parties to lead evidence, because, the Courts are not supposed to wait till eternity for the parties to lead evidence. 5. Majority of the times, the delay in disposal of the cases is being attributed to the Courts, while no one appreciates that delay in fact is on account of the conduct of the parties also as is evident from the present case. 6. 5. Majority of the times, the delay in disposal of the cases is being attributed to the Courts, while no one appreciates that delay in fact is on account of the conduct of the parties also as is evident from the present case. 6. Besides this, the order, in terms whereof, the evidence of the petitioner-plaintiff was closed is dated 18.11.2024, whereas, this petition has been filed after more than a year, i.e., in the month of December, 2025. 7. Accordingly, in light of the above observations, as this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order, the petition is dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.