JUDGMENT Mr. Ram Chand Gupta, J.(Oral) - C.M.Nos.637-638 CII of 2011 Requests for placing on record Annexures P1 to P9. Both the applications are allowed. Annexures P1 to P9 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Further contends that last page of Annexure P3, at page 50 of the paper-book has not been correctly typed and hence, request is made to replace the same with another page filed today. The same is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Civil Revision No.159 of 2011 2. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter to be referred as ‘CPC’) for setting aside impugned order dated 21.12.2010, passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhiwani, Annexure P10, vide which the application of the plaintiff for returning the written statement dated 7.12.2009, filed by the petitioner- Ch.Bansi Lal Memorial Trust, Bhiwani, Chandigarh, (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Trust’), Annexure P4, was allowed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhiwani. 4. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Trust and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhiwani. 4. Brief facts relevant for the purpose of decision of present revision petition are that a civil suit was filed by respondent no.1-plaintiff for declaration to the effect that she is owner in possession of the immovable properties left by late Ch.Bansi Lal including the double storey house situated at Vijay Nagar, Hansi Gate, Bhiwani, shown in site plan, Annexure P1, and agricultural land measuring 145 kanal 2 marlas situated at Village Bhangarh, District and Tehsil Bhiwani, vide jamabandi for the year 1999-2000, Annexure P2, on the basis of joint Will, dated 6.6.2004, Annexure P3, executed by late Ch.Bansi Lal and his son late Ch.Surender Singh and Will dated 19.7.2005, Annexure P4, allegedly executed by late Ch.Bansi Lal is fraudulent, forged, fabricated, result of misrepresentation, undue influence and coercion, surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the same is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside and mutation No.2062, Annexure P5, sanctioned on the basis of alleged registered Will dated 19.7.2005, is also illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside with further relief of permanent injunction to the effect that defendant nos.1 to 5 be restrained from interfering into the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and dispossessing her from the house in dispute. 5. During pendency of suit, defendant no.6-Smt.Vidya Devi, expired. Respondent no.1-plaintiff filed an application that all the legal representatives of Smt.Vidya Devi are already on record and the suit be allowed to proceed further. However, at the same time, an application was filed on behalf of petitioner-Trust through its President Smt.Nirmal Kanta that as Trust was created by Smt.Vidya Devi, hence it be also impleaded as legal representative of Smt.Vidya Devi. The said prayer was allowed by learned trial Court and the Trust through its President Smt.Nirmal Kanta was impleaded as legal representative of defendant no.6. 6. Civil Revision No.7301 of 2009 was also filed against the said order by respondent no.1-plaintiff. However, the said revision was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all factual and legal pleas before learned trial Court, vide order dated 7.10.2010, Annexure P6. 7. 6. Civil Revision No.7301 of 2009 was also filed against the said order by respondent no.1-plaintiff. However, the said revision was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all factual and legal pleas before learned trial Court, vide order dated 7.10.2010, Annexure P6. 7. However, though written statement was filed by defendant no.6 during her lifetime, another written statement was filed on behalf of the Trust after being impleaded as legal representative of Smt.Vidya Devi. Hence, an application was moved on behalf of respondent no.1-plaintiff that the Trust, which was impleaded as legal representative of Smt.Vidya Devi is having no independent right to file separate written statement and hence written statement filed on behalf of the Trust be not taken on the record. The said application was contested by present revision petitioner, which was decided vide impugned order dated 21.12.2010, by learned trial Court allowing the application by observing that bringing on record legal representative of a deceased, defendant or plaintiff, is nothing but an act of substitution in place of such plaintiff and defendant and the legal representative has no better right or title than that of the deceased and is bound by the pleadings of the deceased and hence, has no independent right to file separate pleadings. 8. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner- Trust that petitioner was also impleaded as a party in its individual capacity and not merely as a legal representative of Smt.Vidya Devi-deceased and hence petitioner is having right to file written statement in its individual capacity. 9. However, this plea cannot be accepted as even in the present revision petition, petitioner-Trust has been mentioned as Ch.Bansi Lal Memorial Trust, Bhiwani, Chandigarh, through its President Smt.Nirmal Kanta wife of Shri Ranbir Singh Mahendra, resident of Ashoka Road, Bhiwani (Haryana) being one of the legal representative of Smt.Vidya Devi (since deceased). Even in the reply filed to the application, in which the impugned order was passed, petitioner is claiming as legal representative of Smt.Vidya Devi only. Even no such plea was taken by the present revision petitioner before learned trial Court that he is having any right to contest the present suit in its individual capacity. He was only impleaded as legal representative of deceased Smt.Vidya Devi, as Trust was created by her only. Even no such plea was taken by the present revision petitioner before learned trial Court that he is having any right to contest the present suit in its individual capacity. He was only impleaded as legal representative of deceased Smt.Vidya Devi, as Trust was created by her only. It has also been observed by learned trial Court while passing the impugned order that there is no material difference in the pleadings, written statement and counter claim filed by defendant no.6, Smt. Vidya Devi -deceased and the one filed by the Trust. Learned trial Court has rightly placed reliance upon Rajbir Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur and others 1994 PLJ 464 and Niranjan Singh and others v. Rattan Chand and others 2000 (1) The Punjab Law Reporters 255, by coming to the conclusion that legal representative is bound by the pleadings of the deceased and it is having no legal right to file fresh pleadings after death of original defendant. 10. Separate written statement of present petitioner was illegally taken on record by learned trial Court and the said mistake was corrected vide impugned order. 11. Law is well settled in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 that mere error of fact or law cannot be corrected in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. This Court can interfere only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. 12. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bhiwani, in passing the impugned order or grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Court. 13. Hence, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any merit. ----------0K.0B.------------