IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.606 of 2008 JANG BAHADUR SINGH & ANR Versus KABUTRI DEVI & ANR ----------- 2. 25.9.2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. In the opinion of this Court the impugned order cannot be sustained for a simple reason that if the only reason for recall of the order closing evidence of the defendant 2nd set was that the defendant 2nd set was in jail, such period had to be ascertained. There is nothing in the application of the defendant 2nd set to explain this aspect. The court below had to take into consideration that the evidence of the defendant 2nd set had been closed on 7.12.2006 but no such application for recall of the order closing his evidence was filed for almost next one year and only when the defendant 1st set had completed their evidence on 24.9.2007 such an application came to be filed on 30.11.2007. There is absolutely nothing to show in the impugned order that even this aspect of the matter was gone into. Thus, the approach of the court below that the defendant 1st set would 2 Surendra/ be given another chance to bring any evidence for rebuttal in fact is not the correct approach. It is well settled that if the plaintiff and the defendants are sailing in the same boat, evidence of such defendant supporting the plaintiff has to be immediately followed after completion of evidence of the plaintiff. That having been not done, this Court would not allow the practice which has now been sought to be developed and perpetuated by the impugned order. This Court, however, would still give one more indulgence to the defendant 2nd set to prove their bonadife and therefore, even when this order is being set aside the court below is directed to reconsider the application of the defendant 2nd set in the light of the aforementioned observations and directions and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) 3