IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.978 of 2008 RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA & ORS Versus SARJU PRASAD & ORS ----------- 3 16.07.2008 Heard counsel for the defendant petitioner. In view of the fact that the Court below in the facts of the case has correctly exercised its power under Order XVIII Rule 3A for examination of plaintiff opposite party after examination of his witnesses and the same for the seasons recorded in the impugned order cannot be interfered by this Court in its revisional power. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that since the evidence of both the sides had already been completed but now when the plaintiff opposite party has been allowed to be examined, there is every possibility of his setting up a new case and thus the Court below should have at least given liberty to defendant- petitioners to produce any further evidence, if so required, in rebuttal. In the opinion of this Court, such an issue is yet to emerge inasmuch as what would plaintiff say in his deposition and whether the same would require any rebuttal by the - 2 - Bibhash petitioner in a matter of speculation. This Court has no reason to believe that if as a consequence of deposition of the plaintiff any rebuttal of the same would be necessitated, the same would not be allowed by the Court below. With the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) - 3 -