Legal representatives of deceased defendants retain original defense rights only, without authority to initiate new claims or cross-examinations.

2. It was directed against four defendants i.e. defendant No.1- Mr. Om Prakash Shokeen, defendant No.2-Mr. Anurag Shokeen and defendant No.3-Mr. Bal Kishan Shokeen and defendant No.4-Mr. Rajinder Singh Shokeen.

3. When the plaintiff was under cross-examination, on account of change in pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to District Courts.

4. After such transfer, plaintiff was further cross-examined on 13.07.2016, 28.01.2017 and 04.02.2017 by learned counsel for defendant No.3-Mr. Bal Kishan Shokeen.

5. During further pendency of the matter and in terms of order passed on application moved under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC, Mr. Jitender Kumar Shokeen was appointed as next best friend to take care of interest of defendant No.3-Mr. Bal Kishan Shokeen.

6. Cross-examination of plaintiff by the counsel for defendant No.3 was, eventually, concluded on 20.07.2019.

7. Mr. Bal Kishan Shokeen, unfortunately, died on 08.06.2021 and an application was moved seeking impleadment of his LRs, which was allowed on 16.10.2021.

8. On the basis of such application, his widow Ms. Rattan Shokeen, his two sons Mr. Jitender Kumar Shokeen and Mr. Hitender Shokeen and his two daughters Ms. Vandana Shokeen and Ms. Vaneeta Dabas were impleaded as defendants No.3(A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) respectively.

9. The present petition has been filed by defendant No.3(C)- Mr. Hitender Kumar Shokeen.

10. On 28.11.2022, plaintiff-Mr. Rajan Kumar Shokeen (PW-1) entered into witness box as he was to be further cross-examined by defendant No.4-Mr. Rajinder Singh Shokeen. He was cross-examined and discharged and it was at that stage of the case that the petitioner herein (defendant No.3(C)) requested the learned Trial Court that he may also be given an opportunity to cross-examine PW-1.

11. Such request was opposed by the plaintiff for the reason that the plaintiff had already been cross-examined by defendant No.3 during his lifetime and, therefore, his LRs cannot be allowed to cross-examine PW-1 again.

12. Learned Trial Court observed that a legal heir was under obligation to adopt the stand taken by his predecessor-in-interest and could take defence appropriate to his such character and could continue the suit from the stage when the deceased defendant had left the proceedings and since defendant No.3 had already cross-examined plaintiff on 20.07.2019, his legal heirs could not be given any such fresh indulgence.

13. Accordingly, said request of defendant No.3(C) was declined.

14. Defendant No.3(C) moved an application seeking recall of the abovesaid order dated 28.11.2022 and sought opportunity to cross-examine plaintiff and any other witness of the plaintiff and his such application has also been dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 01.07.2023.

15. Such order is under challenge.

16. The impugned order dated 01.07.2023 would indicate that the learned Trial Court reiterated its view that a legal representative of a deceased defendant merely steps into the shoes of deceased defendant and does not have any right to set up any individual case.

17. Order XXII Rule 4 CPC reads as under:-

“4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant.

(1) Where one of two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant or defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a