JUDGMENT Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 2.11.2006 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Revision No. 4 of 2006 filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 2. Brief facts leading to the present petition, as per the petitioners, are that in the year 1996, part of land belonging to Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi, late mother of the petitioners, consisting of Khasra Nos. 25/3 and 46/11 situated in Village Haripur Kalan, which was purchased by Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi in the year 1968, was shown to be reshuffled on papers in nexus of revenue officials with one Smt. Kulwant Kaur Sidhu and Shri Ved Prakash Arora, who is the plaintiff/respondent in the present case. In the year 1998, Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi filed correction application before the revenue authorities and the notice was issued to the plaintiff/respondent by the court of S.D.M. Rishikesh. 3. The plaintiff/respondent on the basis of survey entries, filed a suit bearing Suit no. 12 of 1999 for injunction against late Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi, as defendant no. 1 and Smt. Meena Chaudhary Sharma, daughter of Late Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi as defendant no. 2 before the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Rishikesh, Dehradun. (It is pertinent to mention here that Smt. Meena Chaudhary Sharma is petitioner no. 1 before this Court). 4. In the aforesaid suit, a joint written statement was filed by the petitioners stating therein that the plaintiff/respondent had fabricated and forged various revenue documents as well as sale deeds. It was pleaded in the written statement that an F.I.R. against the present respondent/plaintiff had also been registered along with other persons during the pendency of the suit. 5. After the expiry of Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi, the respondent/plaintiff moved an amendment application by which he sought amendment in the memo of parties in the plaint as well as certain amendments in the body of plaint and the cause of action. The respondent/plaintiff by way of amendment claimed relief against all the legal heirs of Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi. The petitioner no. 1, who was defendant no. 2 in the suit, was not arrayed separately as legal heir, but the relief was also claimed against defendant no. 2 being legal heir of the deceased defendant no. 1 - Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi. 6. The petitioner no. 1, who was defendant no. 2 in the suit, was not arrayed separately as legal heir, but the relief was also claimed against defendant no. 2 being legal heir of the deceased defendant no. 1 - Smt. Rahiman Bai Guddi. 6. The trial court after receiving the amended plaint permitted the petitioners/defendants to file additional written statement vide order dated 25.11.2005. The petitioners/defendants filed additional written statement on 8.3.2006 as Document No. 164A-1. The respondent/plaintiff filed objections to the additional written statement and thereafter the trial court after having considered the arguments advanced by the parties, rejected the objections/Document No. 168-G filed by the respondent/plaintiff. 7. The respondent/plaintiff filed a civil revision against the order of Civil Judge before the District Judge and the District Judge on 10.5.2006 dismissed the revision in limine. The respondent/plaintiff thereafter filed a writ petition and the High Court vide order dated 11.7.2006 disposed of the writ petition with the direction that the matter is sent back to the revisional court for deciding afresh in the light of the observation made in the body of the judgment. The revisional court after considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, allowed the revision vide order dated 2.11.2006. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the petitioners have filed this writ petition seeing the relief for setting aside the impugned order passed by the District Judge. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted before me that the revisional court passed the impugned order without discussing the written submission filed by the petitioners before it and has adopted incorrect presumption in allowing the revision. It has also been submitted that the approach of the revisional court is against the law that defendant no. 2, who is petitioner no.1 in the present writ petition, could not join the substituted defendants in their additional written statement as required by Order 22 Rule 4(2) C.P.C. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners in order to substantiate his arguments has cited certain decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of different High courts which are as follows: (i) Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai & Ors., reported in 2003 (5) Supreme 390. (ii) Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagput v. M/s Swaraj Developers & others, reported in 2003 (3) Supreme 729. (ii) Shiv Shakti Coop. Housing Society, Nagput v. M/s Swaraj Developers & others, reported in 2003 (3) Supreme 729. (iii) Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v. Jasjit Singh & others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 507. (iv) E. Venkatakrishna v. Indian Oil Corporation and another, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 764. (v) Baldev Singh & others v. Manohar Singh & another, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 498. (vi) Saraswati Debi & others v. Satya Narayan Gupta, reported in AIR 1977 Calcutta 99. (vii) M. Mohammed v. A. Narayana Rao, reported in AIR 1973 Kerala 266. (viii) Saiyed Sirajul Hasan v. Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur & others, reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 162. (ix) M/s M. Laxmi & Co. v. Dr. Anant R. Deshpande & another, reported in AIR 1973 SC 171. (x) Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal, reported in 2002 (47) ALR 203. (xi) Vishwasrao Dadasahed v. Shankarrao D. Kaluyankar, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 211. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent has made his rival contention by submitting that petitioner no. 1 had already filed her written statement being original defendant no. 2 in the suit along with the deceased defendant no. 1. It has been submitted that the remaining legal heirs were substituted, therefore only the substituted heirs could have filed additional written statement and that too may raise any defence in their additional written statement appropriate to their character as legal representatives of the deceased defendant. He has also submitted that in case if the original defendant wanted to take any additional plea then she had to take recourse to Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. 13. It would be relevant to quote the provision of Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. in order to resolve the controversy in the present case and this provision reads as follows: "4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant- (1) Where one of the two or more defendants dies and the right to sue does not survive against the surviving defendant defendants alone, or a sole defendant or sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the court, on the application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased defendant to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. 14. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that "any defence appropriate to their character as legal representatives of the deceased defendant" means that if the substituted defendant wants to take any new defence then he should get himself impleaded as a defendant in the suit in his/her personal capacity first. In the instant case, the substituted defendants had never moved application before the court to be impleaded as defendants in their personal capacity, therefore they could have raised new defence only which are appropriate to their character as legal representatives of the deceased defendant and they cannot raise defence by asserting independently as an independent litigant. In case, if the deceased defendant having already filed her written statement jointly with defendant no. 2 (petitioner no. 1 in the present case), her legal representatives cannot be permitted to make out a new case in their written statement. The Hon'ble High Court in a case Sheo Dutt vs. 10th Additional District Judge, Aligarh, 2003 (21) LCD 139 has held that "once the law of amendment prescribes a particular procedure for amendment of pleadings, then it has to be done in accordance with prescribed procedure and other modes are impliedly prohibited." 15. In this connection, it would be relevant to quote the provisions of Order 6 Rule 2, 7 and 17 of C.P.C. which read as follows: 2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence- (1) every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise from of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are to be proved. (2) Every pleading shall, when necessary, be divided into paragraphs, numbered consecutively, each allegation being, so far as is convenient, contained in a separate paragraph. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 7. Departure.- No pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same. 17. (3) Dates, sums and numbers shall be expressed in a pleading in figures as well as in words. 7. Departure.- No pleading shall, except by way of amendment, raise any new ground of claim or contain any allegation of fact inconsistent with the previous pleadings of the party pleading the same. 17. Amendment of pleadings.- The court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due dilligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial. 16. The aforesaid provisions describe for a particular procedure for amendment of pleadings and also prescribe as to what the pleadings should contain under Rule 2 of Order 6. The aforesaid provisions also make it clear that the original defendant can raise new defence only through amendment but the substituted defendants may make any defence. The only limitation is that the defence so raised must be appropriate to their character as legal representatives of deceased defendant. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions, it is quite clear that the additional written statement jointly filed by the substituted defendant along with defendant no. 2 (petitioner no. 1 in this case), who was already on record, has raised new defence not appropriate to the character of substituted defendant and along with additional written statement the substituted defendants as well as original defendant have filed evidence which is not permissible under law. 17. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention and I am of the view that none of the decisions is going to help the petitioners at this stage. 18. Learned court below has elaborately discussed the contents made in paragraphs no. 3 and 7 of the additional written statement which is paper no. 164-A sought to be taken on record and has come to the conclusion that paragraphs made therein clearly, indicate that the original defendant, who is petitioner no. 18. Learned court below has elaborately discussed the contents made in paragraphs no. 3 and 7 of the additional written statement which is paper no. 164-A sought to be taken on record and has come to the conclusion that paragraphs made therein clearly, indicate that the original defendant, who is petitioner no. 1 in this writ petition, along with substituted defendants wants to raise new development which is not appropriate to the character of the substituted defendants. The court below has also observed in the impugned judgment and order that it is open for the substituted defendants to file additional written statement and take plea in the defence appropriate to their character as legal representatives of the deceased defendant no. 1. The court below while passing the impugned judgment and order has also suggested therein that in case if the petitioner no. 1, who is original defendant no. 2 in the suit, intends to raise any new grounds in the defence, then she may raise so with the leave of the court through amendment of the written statement filed by her jointly with the deceased defendant. 19. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order dated 2.11.2006 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Revision No. 4 of 2006. 20. The petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2.11.2006 passed by District Judge, Dehradun, deserves to be confirmed. 21. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 2.11.2006 passed by District Judge, Dehradun, is confirmed. The interim order dated 20.11.2006 passed by this Court stands vacated.