JUDGMENT Ajay Tewari, J (Oral).:- This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC for failure to lead evidence despite having availed six opportunities. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 2. Counsel for the appellant has raised the following questions:- “ i) Can the court close the evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC without resorting to the provisions of Higher cost, which can also include punitive cost in the discretion of the Court ? ii) Can the Court close the evidence under Order 17 Rule 3 after the grant of three opportunities inspite the fact that such closure of evidence will result in grave injustice to the party ? 3. In support of the first question, counsel for the appellant has relied upon Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows :- “..........Even in cases which may not strictly within the category of circumstances beyond the control of a party, the Court by resorting to the provision of higher cost which can also include punitive cost in the discretion of the Court, adjournment beyond three can be granted having regard to the injustice that may result on refusal thereof, with reference to peculiar facts of a case. We may, however, add that grant of any adjournment let alone first, second or third adjournment is not a right of a party. The grant of adjournment by a court has to be on a party showing special and extraordinary circumstances. It cannot be in routine. While considering prayer for grant of adjournment, it is necessary to keep in mind the legislative intent to restrict grant of adjournments.” 4. In this view of the matter, I put it to learned counsel for the appellant if the appellant is ready to pay Rs.50,000/- as costs to the respondents. Counsel for the appellant has agreed that the appellant shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the respondents. Counsel for the respondents has also not seriously disputed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs would be adequate. 5. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court. Counsel for the respondents has also not seriously disputed that the amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs would be adequate. 5. In the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 4.8.2009 on which date the appellant shall deposit Rs.50,000/-. On such a deposit being made, the trial Court shall grant two effective opportunities to the appellant to lead his entire evidence at his own responsibility. However, if the costs are not paid, this appeal shall be deemed to have been dismissed. As the main appeal has since been disposed of, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ----------------