Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, for quashing the order of the learned Magistrate, dated 28th August, 1980. 2. The facts, in brief, are that a proceeding under section 145 of the code of Criminal Procedure is pending in the court of Shri S. N. Lal, executive Magistrate, Bhagalpur the petitioners are the second party in that proceeding. The recording of evidence for the first party was ordered to be closed on 5th December, 1979. The recording of evidence on behalf of the second party commenced from 14th December, 1979 and it came to a close in august, 1980- After the recording of evidence on behalf of the second party was concluded, a prayer was made on behalf of the first party to permit them to adduce further evidence. The learned Magistrate granted the prayer and directed the first party to produce their witnesses. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the learned Magistrate, permitting the first party to adduce evidence after closure of their evidence, have moved this court by the present application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in adopting the procedure of permitting the first party to adduce evidence after the closure of the evidence on behalf of the second party amounted to abuse of the process of the court. Mr. Roy for the petitioners contended that it is unknown to law that the first party should be permitted to examine witnesses after the second party concluded examination of its witnesses. There is no substance in this submission and must be rejected. Sec.311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits any court at any stage of any enquiry, trial or other proceeding to examine any person or recall any person or summon any person as a witness. The Code gives wide latitude to a court in the matter of examination of witnesses in consonance with justice and fairpaly. 4. The order sheet of the learned Magistrate shows that on 14th december, 1979 the learned Magistrate had ordered that the first party will be permitted to examine withesses after the second party has examined its witnesses. On 14th December, 1979, the prayer of the first party was neither opposed by the second party nor was the order passed by the learned magistrate opposed by the second party. On 14th December, 1979, the prayer of the first party was neither opposed by the second party nor was the order passed by the learned magistrate opposed by the second party. The order dated 14th December.1979 was final. 5. The petitioners did not consider it appropriate to agitate that matter at that stage. If the learned Magistrate had not permitted the first party to adduce witnesses in August 1980, he would be perpetuating injustice to the first party. The first parly would be taken by surprise. They must have been under the impression that after the second party would close its case, they would be permitted to examine their witnesses. 6. It is true that the order of the learned Magistrate dated 14th december, 1979, permitting the first party to adduce evidence after the closure of the case of the second party, was not proper, but the first party cannot be made to suffer on account of the mistake of the court. No party can be made to suffer for the mistake of the court. The order of the learned Magistrate is purely interlocutory and discretionery. In my view, there is no justification for interfering with order of the learned Magistrate, 7. For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in this application. It is dismissed accordingly.