IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1943 of 2008 BHAGWAN GOAR Versus MUKESH KUMAR & ANR ----------- 2 26/11/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. The court below by the impugned order had initially allowed the plaintiff to adduce evidence after its closure of evidence on the ground that the report of the pleader commissioner was received after the plaintiff had already closed his evidence. Similarly, the court below had allowed evidence to be adduced by the plaintiff in the form of receipt of one Pawan Kumar which came into existence after the evidence was closed, i.e, only after closure of the evidence of the plaintiff. In the opinion of this Court said order of the court below cannot be said to be vitiated by any jurisdictional error and the view taken by the court below also has no exception either on fact or in law. The concept of additional evidence as is being sought to be pressed by the petitioner is wholly misconceived. It has to be always kept in mind that the 2 plaintiff who had started argument earlier had definitely right of rebuttal. That being so, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order. Accordingly, this application being wholly misconceived, is hereby dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar