JUDGMENT: M. Y. Eqbal, J.- The interesting question involved in this application is as to whether the substituted heirs and legal representatives of the deceased defendant have right to file written statement in the suit? 2. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass:- The plaintiffs-respondent nos. 1 to 12 filed a suit being Title Suit No. 51 of 1995 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Giridih for declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 7 to 20 have got right, title, interest and possession over the suit land by virtue of purchase made in the year, 1980 and also for a declaration that the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 7 to 20 have got specific share in the suit land. 3. The defendants appeared in the suit. However, no written statement was filed and consequently by order dated 3.6.2005 defendant no. 2 was debarred from filing written statement. Thereafter on 7.6.2006 defendant no. 2 died and after his death the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application for substitution of the present petitioners who are the heirs and legal representatives of deceased-defendant no. 2 in his place. The said application was allowed on 11.7.2006 and the petitioners were substituted in place of deceased defendant no. 2. The .1etitioners, who are the substituted heirs, appeared in the suit and filed written statement. 4. The court below refused to accept the written statement holding that the substituted defendants have got only right to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiffs and participate in the argument and they have got no right to file written statement. The petitioners have impugned the said order in this application. 5. I have heard Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Admittedly the deceased-defendant no. 2 although appeared in the suit but he was debarred from filing written statement. Subsequent thereto he died leaving behind the petitioners as his heirs and legal representatives. After the death of defendant no. 2 the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application for substitution of the petitioners in place of the deceased defendant and the same was allowed by the court After appearance the petitioners filed written statement which the court refused to accept by passing the impugned order. 7. After the death of defendant no. 2 the plaintiffs-respondents filed an application for substitution of the petitioners in place of the deceased defendant and the same was allowed by the court After appearance the petitioners filed written statement which the court refused to accept by passing the impugned order. 7. In the Impugned order the Court below relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of "T. Venkata Narain and Others VS. Smt. Venkata Subbamma and Others" [ AIR 1996 SC 1807 ] and a Bench decision of Jharkhand High Court in the case of "Shyam Sundar Bazaz VS. Sanwarmal Jalan and Others" { (2005)2 JCR 115 [: 2005(4) JLJR 372 ]} and held that substituted legal representatives of the deceased-defendant have no independent right and they cannot be permitted to file additional written statement. The Court further held that the substituted defendants have got right only to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and to participate in the proceeding. Accordingly, the written statement filed by the substituted defendants has been rejected. 8. First of all I will refer some of the relevant provisions of the Code of CIVil Procedure. Order 8 Rule 1 was amended by CPC Amendment Act, 2002. According to the amended provision if the defendant, after appearance, fails to file written statement within the prescribed time, he shall be debarred from filing written statement. Order 8 Rule 10 C.P.C., as amended in 2002, provides the consequences for nonfiling of written statement. Rule 10 of Order 8 reads as under:- "10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court.-Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up." 9. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the procedure in case of death, marriage and insolvency of parties. Order 22 Rule 4 is relevant for the present case. Rule 4 of Order 22 reads as under:- "4. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down the procedure in case of death, marriage and insolvency of parties. Order 22 Rule 4 is relevant for the present case. Rule 4 of Order 22 reads as under:- "4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sale 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 sale surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representatives 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. (3) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub- rule (1), the suit shall abate as against the deceased defendant. (4) The Court whenever it thinks fit, may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or who having filed it, has failed to appear and contest the suit at the hearing, and judgment may, in such case, be pronounced against the said defendant notwithstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place. (5) Where (a) the plaintiff was ignorant of the death of a defendant, and could not, for that reason, make an application for the substitution of the legal representatives of the defendant under this rule within the period specified in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), and the suit has, in consequence, abated, and (b) the plaintiff applies after the expiry of the period specified there for in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963), for setting aside the abatement and also for the admission of that application under Section 5 of that Act on the ground that he had, by reason of such ignorance, sufficient cause for not making the application within the period specified in the said Act, the court shall, in considering the application under the said Section 5, have due regard to the fact of such ignorance, if proved." 10. From perusal of the aforesaid provision it is manifestly clear that on the death of the defendant if right to sue survives then on an application made in that behalf, legal representative shall be substituted in place of the deceased/defendant. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C. provides that the substituted defendant after becoming party in the suit, may make any defence appropriate -to his character as legal representative of the deceased. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C., as inserted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 1976, provides that in a case where the defendant failed to file written statement or failed to appear and contest the suit, the Court may exempt the plaintiff from the necessity of substituting legal representative and judgment may be pronounced against the deceased-defendant which shall have the same force and effect as it has been pronounced before the death took place. 11. On a combined reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C. together it is evidently clear that in case of death of a defendant who failed to file written statement and also failed to participate in the proceeding, there may not be necessity of bringing the legal representative of the deceased-defendant on record and the Court may proceed to de -cide the suit and in the event any judgment is passed that shall have the same force and effect as it was passed before the death took place. However, irrespective of the fact whether the deceased defendant filed written statement or no written statement was filed, after the legal representative of the deceased-defendant is brought on record by way of substitution at the instance of the plaintiff, then a right accrues to the substituted legal representative to make any defence appropriate to his character as the legal representative of the deceased-defendant. 12. The decisions relied upon by the Court below while passing the impugned order do not apply in the facts of the present case. In T. Venkata Narain's case (supra) the question decided by the Supreme Court is quite different from the facts of the instant case. In the Shyam Sundar Bazaz case (supra) the fact was that in an eviction suit the defendant/tenant contested the suit but in the meantime died and his legal representatives were brought on record. In T. Venkata Narain's case (supra) the question decided by the Supreme Court is quite different from the facts of the instant case. In the Shyam Sundar Bazaz case (supra) the fact was that in an eviction suit the defendant/tenant contested the suit but in the meantime died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The legal representatives, after substitution, filed additional written statement raising a new and different plea other than the original case of the deceased-defendant which was rejected .by the trial Court. On those facts the Court held that such new and different plea cannot be raised by the legal representative. 13. In the instant case, no written statement was at all filed by the deceased defendant as he was debarred from filing written statement for the reason that written statement could not be filed by the deceased-defendant within time. The deceased-defendant thereafter died without raising any defence in the suit In such circumstance, on the death of the defendant, if the legal representative is substituted at the instance of the plaintiff on an application made in that behalf, then in my considered opinion, debarring the legal representative also from filing written statement will amount to serious miscarriage of justice and also violation of principles of natural justice. If on account of fault of the deceased-defendant in not filing written statement within time stipulated in the Code, he was debarred from filing written statement, that does not mean that legal representative of the deceased-defendant who were not at fault, can be debarred from contesting the suit: Moreover, the plaintiff could. have availed the provisions of sub-rule (4) of Order 22 C.P.C. by making a prayer for expunging the name of the deceased-defendant instead of sub stituting the legal representative but the plaintiff, instead of doing so, made a prayer for substitution of the legal representative of the deceased-defendant by filing an application in that behalf. In such a situation, in my considered opinion, it would highly unjust and unfair to the legal representatives, if they are not allowed to contest the suit by raising the defence available to them. 14. Hence, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Court below is directed to accept the written statement, if any, filed by the petitioners and proceed with the hearing of the suit.