Judgment : This civil revision petition is preferred against an order dismissing the plaintiff’s application before the trial court to reopen the case. 2. It appears the dispute in the case relates to an alleged will. The court informed the counsel for the plaintiff that for proof of the Will all the witnesses shall be examined on the same day. The counsel for the plaintiff examined one attestor to the Will and made an endorsement on the plaint that the evidence for the plaintiff is closed. But after a week a petition has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff stating that the counsel has made the said endorsement in advertently and that the plaintiff has to examine another attesting witness and the scribe and therefore the case may be reopened. This petition was dismissed. Hence this revision. 3. I do not think that the order of the trial court can be interfered with. When the counsel has made the endorsement he knew all the implications thereof. Therefore there is no point in saying subsequently after a week that it is necessary that two more witnesses have to be examined. It is stated that the endorsement was made inadvertently. It cannot be believed. The counsel has not filed any affidavit stating so. The petitioner is rather incompetent to say that. Then the genuineness of an alleged Will is in question and the evidence has to be let in by the plaintiff it would be just and necessary that all the witnesses who would speak as to the genuineness of the will should be examined on the same day as in this case the learned trial Judge has told the counsel for the plaintiff. 4. If one witness was examined and the counsel has made an endorsement stating that the plaintiffs’ side is closed the plaintiff shall stand by that. Merely because the plaintiff states that it was due to inadvertence the counsel made the endorsement the case cannot be reopened. It is stated that by reopening the case the opposite side will not be prejudiced. It is not correct. When the first witness has been examined as to the genuineness of the Will he will know the line of the cross examination by the opposite side. It is stated that by reopening the case the opposite side will not be prejudiced. It is not correct. When the first witness has been examined as to the genuineness of the Will he will know the line of the cross examination by the opposite side. If the next witness is to be examined not on the same day, but subsequently that witness will know as to what questions would be put to him in the cross examination. Therefore naturally the cross-examination will not be effective. This is how the other side would be prejudiced. 5. In the circumstances of the case, I do not think this is a fit case that the case shall be reopened as prayed for by the plaintiff. Thus I find no merit in the civil revision petition. Accordingly it is dismissed.