IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.362 of 2007 KISHANI DEVI & ANR Versus LAXMI DEVI @ LAKSHWATI DEVI & ORS. ----------- 2 1/10/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioners. The impugned order refusing to recall the order dated 14.9.2006 closing the evidence of the petitioner, defendant second set, does not set out any fact, muchless, any reason as to why the defendant second set (petitioners) would be deprived from leading their evidence when no opportunity seems to have been given to them. It may be true that the defendant first set and defendant second set are sailing on the same boat but that will not mean that if the evidence of the defendant first set had been closed and they were shut out from leading their evidence, the defendant second set should also be handed out the same treatment. That being so, this Court would set aside the impugned order to the extent that the defendant second set have been deprived an opportunity in leading their evidence. It is, however, made clear that the defendant second set will not be allowed to 2 lead any evidence which has already been adduced and/or is on record in the evidence of defendant first set and the defendant second set must complete their evidence in any event within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observation this application is allowed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar