JUDGMENT Parties are heard finally. The applicant-defendant being aggrieved, by the order dated 20-11-1998 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 87-A/1996 observing that the present applicant has no right to file an independent written statement and is bound by pleadings raised by the earlier party, has filed this revision petition. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant was not bought on record under the provisions of Order 22 rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in her capacity as a legal representative, but was added as a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, .therefore, by no stretch of imagination, she could be treated as a legal representative and the bar contained under order 22 rule 4 of CPC would not apply. According to him, a party who has been joined subsequent to the institution of the suit in his/her independent capacity would always have a right to file a separate and independent written statement. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants/plaintiffs submits that the Court below was justified in passing the order in view of the fact that the present applicant is widow of the deceased partner. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs after death of the partner made an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC and the said application was contested by the present applicant-defendant, mainly on the ground that legal representatives of a partner could not be brought on record. After due contest, the said application was rejected by the learned trial Court. Immediately, thereafter the plaintiffs submitted another application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of CPC requesting the Court that as one of the partners has expired, the other partners be brought on record. The said application was again opposed by the proposed parties, but this time, the application was allowed. Each of the parties being aggrieved by the said orders had preferred revision petition which were heard and dismissed by the District Judge. After addition of the present applicant as a party-defendant, she made an application to the trial Court that she be permitted to file her independent written statement but this time, the plaintiffs opposed the prayer and submitted that as the present applicant has been brought on record as a legal representative, she has no right to file the independent written statement. The Court, accepting the argument, rejected the applicant's application and did not allow her to file the independent written statement. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant has come to 'this Court. Shri Paranjpe, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the facts floating on the surface of the record would clearly show that the present applicant was not brought on record in her capacity as a legal representative, therefore, the approach of the Court below that the present applicant is bound by the written statement already submitted by the deceased was not proper and fair. Shri Agrawal though submits that the order passed by the Court below is in accordance with law, but was unable to controvert the fact that the applicant was not brought on record as a legal representative. It is trite that when a person is brought on record in his/her capacity as a legal representative, then he/she is bound by the pleadings already raised by the deceased, he/she cannot raise pleadings or defence which were otherwise not available to the original party, but the said principle would not apply in a case where a person who otherwise happens to be a legal representative but is brought on record under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in his personal capacity. Undisputedly, the applicant was brought on record under order 1 rule 10(2) of CPC, therefore, she cannot be termed to be a legal representative. It would be altogether a different thing that the present applicant happens to be a legal representative of the deceased, but her substitution on the record is not in her capacity as a legal representative. She has been joined in her independent ' capacity. The bar contained under order 22 rule 4 would have no application. The Court below has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law and has committed such illegality/irregularity which has adversely affected its jurisdiction. In view of the legal proposition, the revision deserves to and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the Court below is set aside. The applicant is permitted to file independent written statement within 8 weeks from today, which shall be taken on record. The trial Court shall try to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible keeping in view that the suit is pending for one reason or the other for the last 12 years. No costs. Petition Allowed.