ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that atleast one opportunity could have been granted by the learned trial Judge to lead evidence. Reliance is placed on the ruling in the case of Kewal Krishan .vs. Harnek Singh (Dead) by L.Rs. reported in AIR 2001 SC 1440. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said ruling considered grant of final opportunity to the appellant before the Apex Court subject to payment of cost in the sum of Rs.500/- as ends of justice require that the appellant be given one more opportunity of leading evidence and therefore, the order closing the evidence of the appellant in that case was set aside and the trial Court was directed to permit the appellant to lead evidence subject to payment of cost. 3. On behalf of the respondent, grievance is made that repeated adjournments are sought by the petitioner, who is a tenant facing eviction proceedings in the trial Court and repeatedly, medical certificates in respect of alleged viral fever were annexed with the application seeking adjournment. But, in fact, the defendant wanted to prolong the eviction proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned trial Judge, who was fed up with filing of the applications for grant of adjournments by or on behalf of the defendant, closed evidence of the defendant by impugned order dt.25.2.2014 in the pending Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2010 in the Court of Additional Small Causes Court, Nagpur. 4. Parties to the suit in this case, which was a Civil Suit of the year 2010, are expected to cooperate and assist the Court to lead evidence when the suit is fixed for hearing. Seeking repeated adjournments without any just and reasonable cause should be deprecated and discouraged. The trial Court becomes helpless when adjournments are sought on the medical grounds and may grant adjournment in the larger interest of justice when the applications are supported by the medical certificate. However, in such cases, if the trial Court is suspecting that medical certificate may be a bogus document to mislead the trial Court, the trial Court can go ahead by summoning the doctor concerned who gave medical certificate if there is tendency to seek adjournments repeatedly on medical grounds without genuine medical advice and prescription requiring bed rest. However, in such cases, if the trial Court is suspecting that medical certificate may be a bogus document to mislead the trial Court, the trial Court can go ahead by summoning the doctor concerned who gave medical certificate if there is tendency to seek adjournments repeatedly on medical grounds without genuine medical advice and prescription requiring bed rest. Without going into merits of the grounds for adjournment, I think if reasonable cost in the sum of Rs.10,000/- is imposed upon the defendant as a condition precedent for leading evidence by way of final opportunity, it would serve the ends of justice. 5. In the circumstances, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (1) of the petition subject to payment of cost in the sum of Rs.10,000/- as a condition precedent by the defendant to the plaintiff. The learned trial Judge shall, within fifteen days of receipt of the writ in this case, fix the suit for hearing by allowing the defendant in the case to lead evidence subject to payment of cost as mentioned above. It is assured on behalf of the petitioner that no further adjournment will be sought and the defendant would cooperate with the trial Court for early disposal of the case. The trial Court shall endeavor to dispose of the suit as early as possible. The petition is, thus, allowed and disposed of accordingly.