The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by Mr. Hitender Shokeen, one of the legal heirs of late Bal Kishan Shokeen, who sought permission to re-cross examine the plaintiff in a long-running property dispute dating back to 2007. Justice Manoj Jain, while delivering the judgment, made it clear that heirs cannot ''set the clock backwards'' once the deceased party had already cross-examined the witness during his lifetime.
Background
The case began in 2007 when Mr. Rajan Kumar Shokeen filed a civil suit against his relatives, including Bal Kishan Shokeen. Over the years, the matter dragged on with multiple rounds of cross-examinations. Bal Kishan actively defended his side until his death in June 2021. Thereafter, his widow, sons, and daughters were brought on record as his legal representatives.
In November 2022, when plaintiff Rajan Shokeen was being cross- examined by another defendant, Hitender Kumar Shokeen requested an additional opportunity to question him. His plea was denied by the trial court, which reasoned that Bal Kishan had already exercised that right extensively, concluding cross- examination in 2019.
Court's Observations
Justice Manoj Jain carefully examined precedents cited by the petitioner, including Jagdish Chander Chatterjee v. Sri Kishan and Vidyawati v. Man Mohan. The bench noted that those rulings did not support Hitender's claim in the given factual context. Instead, the court relied on a more recent Delhi High Court judgment in Dabur India Ltd. v. Mani Kant Dang (2022), where it was categorically held that heirs cannot restart litigation stages after substitution.
''The petitioner has, merely, stepped into the shoes of the deceased defendant and therefore must continue with the proceedings from where his predecessor left,''
Justice Jain observed. He further remarked that allowing such demands would ''lead to absurd results and endless delays'' in the judicial process.
Also Read : Supreme Court Orders Coal India to Refund 20% Excess Charges Collected Under 2006 Interim Coal Policy
The judge also pointed out that Hitender had unilaterally filed an additional written statement in 2021 without court approval, which was rightly ignored by the trial court.
''His impleadment does not give him any unfettered right to submit fresh pleadings or to re-cross examine witnesses already discharged,'' the court said.
Decision
Concluding the matter, the High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the trial court’s earlier orders.
''Viewed thus, this Court does not find any merit or substance in the present petition and same is accordingly dismissed,'' Justice Jain declared.
With this, the nearly two-decade-old family dispute will proceed on the evidence already recorded, without reopening the plaintiff’s testimony for further cross-examination.
Case Tittle : Hitender Shokeen vs Rajan Kumar Shokeen & Ors.
Case Number : CM(M) 1797/2023 & CM APPL. 56818/2023
