ORDER: The respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the 2nd defendant in the suit, who have filed an application, seeking permission of the Court to file an additional written statement and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred this civil revision petition. Heard the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners and the respondents. 2. Admittedly, the respondents are the heirs and legal representatives of the 2nd defendant, who had already file a written statement and the same is available on record. According to the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners, the respondents filed an additional written statement along with the petition, wherein, they have raised a new plea, which was not set forth by the original 2nd defendant. 3. It is the contention of the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners, the respondents, as legal representatives of the deceased, 2nd defendant, are not entitled to put forward a new plea, which was not raised by the original defendant. 4. The apprehension of the learned Advocate for the respondents is that they found out certain new facts and if they are not permitted to file an additional written statement, they would be debarred from letting in evidence to that effect and only for that purpose, they have filed an application.5. It is settled law that the persons, who are brought on record, as legal representatives of the deceased party, are not entitled to plead other than what has already been pleaded by the then existing party. The position would be different, if they are not brought on record as necessary or proper parties, as provided under O.1, Rule 10(2), C.P.C. In our case, the respondents are brought on record, as the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased, defendant and therefore, the learned Advocate for the revision petitioners is absolutely correct in opposing the petition filed by the respondents that they should not be permitted to set up a new plea other than the one, which has already been pleaded by the then existing defendant. But, at the same time, the respondents are entitled to let in evidence based upon the pleadings, which have already been available before the Court and if any new matter is founded, on the basis of the records, they are also at liberty to put necessary and relevant questions to that effect. But, at the same time, the respondents are entitled to let in evidence based upon the pleadings, which have already been available before the Court and if any new matter is founded, on the basis of the records, they are also at liberty to put necessary and relevant questions to that effect. But, for that matter, the respondents cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement, setting up a new plea. 6. In this connection, it would be relevant to refer the case of Gajraj v. Sudha and others, (1999)3 S.C.C. 109 , wherein the Apex Court has held, “The scope of an enquiry under Sec.22, Rule 5 of the C.P.C., is very limited. Moreover, this is a suit between the landlord and the tenant. The plea taken by the proposed L.Rs. is inconsistent with the plea taken by the deceased Vasantrao. They must proceed with the litigation from the stage where the death of defendant had taken place. They are bound by the pleadings of their predecessor in whose place they are to be substituted. A legal representative substituted cannot set up a new or individual right.” The principles enunciated by the Apex Court are squarely applicable to the case on hand. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed. But, however, the respondents are permitted to put relevant and necessary questions based upon the pleadings and documents relied upon by both the parties. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.Ps. are closed.