Civil Revision No.6407 of 2007 (O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.6407 of 2007 (O&M) Decided on : July 20, 2009 Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner VERSUS M/s Kura Mal Narsi Dass Commissioner Agents and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Ms.Pooja Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr.Sushil Gautam, Advocate for respondent. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The defendant – petitioner (herein referred as `the defendant) has assailed the order dated 26.11.2007 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Kaithal, whereby, his application for re-summoning the witnesses, already cross-examined by the original defendant Bharat Singh, in whose shoes he has stepped into as defendant, was dismissed. Factual background of the case is that the plaintiff filed a suit against Bharat Singh. However, on the demise of Bharat Singh , the defendants Bimla Devi, Rajesh and Virender were arrayed as his legal representatives. Before Bharat Singh (original defendant) had died, he had submitted written statement, cross-examined the plaintiff's witnesses and Civil Revision No.6407 of 2007 (O&M) [ 2 ] after the plaintiff's evidence had been over, he was given opportunity to lead his evidence. However, when the case was fixed for defendant's evidence, the defendants moved an application for impleading them as his legal representatives and thereafter, they filed an application for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, which was declined by the Trial Court. Arguments heard and record perused. The Code of Civil Procedure does not provide for recalling and re-examining any witness who has already been cross-examined at length, except that such witness could be recalled by the Court for re-examination to clarify or remove any ambiguity. It is worth-while to mention that the defendants are legal heirs of the original defendant Bharat Singh and they cannot disown the cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses conducted during his life time. They will have to accept the proceedings conducted in the presence of Bharat Singh, including the filing of written statement and the leading of the plaintiff's evidence. No order, which was passed during the life time of Bharat Singh has been upset by any Court. The evidence of the plaintiff has already been closed and the case is now fixed for defendants' evidence. Now, it is not open to the defendants to reopen the case by recalling the plaintiff witnesses only on the ground that they have been brought on record at this stage. No right accrues to the legal representatives of a party to condemn the proceedings conducted by the court in the presence of their predecessor. Counsel for the defendant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in case Sumtibai and others vs. Paras Finance Civil Revision No.6407 of 2007 (O&M) [ 3 ] Co.Mankanwar W/o Parasmal Chordia (D) and others, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 524. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case, because the sale-deed sought to be challenged in the said case was in the name of the party-defendant, who had since expired as well as his sons, who were not impleaded as party and it appears that the suit might be at the stage of filing the written statement. In that situation, the Court allowed the defendant/s to file written statement to explain their conduct, but in the case in hand, the defendants have not been impleaded in their own capacity, but as the legal representatives of Bharat Singh (the original defendant), therefore, they have no right to ask the Court to reopen the trial. Dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE July 20, 2009 `gian'