IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 456 of 2010 Date of decision: 23.12.2010. Dina Nath …Petitioner. Versus Sushil Kumar …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the respondent: None. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is totally misconceived. The petitioner, who is the defendant before the learned trial Court filed an application that the legal heir of the original plaintiff, Sushil Kumar, who had been impleaded as the plaintiff after her death, should not be permitted to be examined. 2. The undisputed facts are that the original suit was filed by Santi Devi. It appears that when Santi Devi was alive on her behalf one of her sons Deep Raj was examined as her attorney. Thereafter, Santi Devi died and Sushil Kumar, Durga Dass, Dinesh Kumar and Manish Kumar were brought on record as legal representatives on the basis of some will allegedly executed by Santi Devi in their favour. The objection of 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 the petitioner is that since Deep Raj had appeared as attorney of Santi Devi and one of the legal representatives Durga Dass has also been examined in evidence, there is no need to examine Sushil Kumar. I am afraid that such prayer could not be allowed. The learned trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer. A party, who has been impleaded as legal heir, when the case is still fixed for evidence, has full right to appear in the witness box. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected in limine. No order as to costs. 23rd December, 2010 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge