IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.705 of 2008 SMT. PRAMILA KUMARI & ANR Versus ARUN SINGH & ORS ----------- 2 16.07.2008 Heard counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error in the impugned order. The Court below has rightly taken the view that after the evidence of both the parties were closed and infact argument of the defendants were already completed, the much belated prayer of the petitioners for being allowed to depose as witnesses of plaintiff was made. Such prayer was wholly misconceived and was rightly rejected. At this stage the counsel for the petitioner has expressed his apprehension that since the father of the petitioner No.2 who was originally plaintiff No.3 was examined and cross-examined before his death in the year, 1994 on 20.9.1994 and is now no longer around, the Court below may not accept the such evidence of such P.W.3. This Court fails to understand any logic or reason for such apprehension of the petitioner. Accordingly there is no merit in this Civil Revision application and as such the same is dismissed in limine. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) BCJ 2