Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made to the order dated 7.11.2009. 2. By the aforesaid order, two application were decided by the Court below. So far as this writ petition is concerned, it pertains to the order on an application made by the plaintiff respondents under Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Aforesaid application was filed to delete new facts in the amended written statement. 3. It is a case where a suit for eviction was filed. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff respondents moved an application under Order XXII rule 3 CPC, which was allowed, accordingly plaintiff respondents were permitted to file amended plaint/application. Defendant petitioner, thereupon, filed amended written statement containing additional facts than the facts mentioned in earlier written statement. Plaintiff respondents raised objection for addition of new facts in the written statement ignoring provisions of Order XXII rule 3 CPC. This is more so when application for amendment in written statement was earlier dismissed by the court below vide its order dated 29.2.1996 followed by yet another application for amendment and dismissal thereof vide order dated 6.5.1998. Petitioner defendant yet added those facts while filing amended written statement. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when the plaintiff respondents were permitted to amend his plaint/application then defendant petitioner was legally entitled to submit his amended written statement by incorporating all the pleas available to him. Taking note of the aforesaid, amended written statement was containing new pleas and facts and it is wrongly been ordered to be deleted by the impugned order. To support his arguments, reference of the judgment in the case of "Maqsooda vs. Abdul Karim & Ors." reported in 1996 (3) WLC (Raj.) 87 = RLW 1996(2) Raj. 70 has been given. In view of the submissions aforesaid, prayer is made to set aside the impugned order to the extent is challenged in this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. Plaintiff respondents made an application under Order XXII rule 3 CPC to bring legal heirs on record on account of death of plaintiff thus no amendment was made in the averments. Provision of Order XXII rule 3 CPC does not give any right to the defendant petitioner to amend the averment in the written statement. Plaintiff respondents made an application under Order XXII rule 3 CPC to bring legal heirs on record on account of death of plaintiff thus no amendment was made in the averments. Provision of Order XXII rule 3 CPC does not give any right to the defendant petitioner to amend the averment in the written statement. Petitioner, in fact, earlier also made an application for amendment in the written statement which was dismissed followed by dismissal of even another application containing same prayer. The orders so passed on those applications were not challenged by the petitioner, hence, attained finality. Petitioner has now made amendments in the written statement, which were earlier not permitted. Looking to the scope of Order XXII rule 3 CPC amendment in the written statement to bring new averments therein is not permissible. So far as case of Maqsooda (supra) is concerned, it was in reference to the provision under order XXII rule 4 CPC. Aforesaid provision permits filing of written statement with new pleas. Thus, judgment in the case of Maqsooda (supra) has no application to the present case. Thus, court below has rightly allowed the application. 6. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. 7. It has not been disputed by the parties that petitioner made an application for seeking amendment in the written statement. The application was dismissed by the court below firstly on 29.2.1996. Same application filed again was dismissed vide order dated 6.5.1998. It is on an application filed by the respondents under Order XXII rule 3 CPC on account of death of plaintiff that amended plaint was allowed to be filed. The amended plaint was not containing new facts or averments. In fact, it was filed in view of amendment in the cause title. The defendant petitioner thereupon filed amended written statement containing new facts and averments. It was those averments which were earlier sought to be brought in written statement by seeking amendment though prayer aforesaid was declined on two occasions. In the aforesaid background and looking to the provision of Order XXII rule 3 CPC, new averments and pleas in the written statement were ordered to be deleted vide impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Maqsooda (supra). In the aforesaid background and looking to the provision of Order XXII rule 3 CPC, new averments and pleas in the written statement were ordered to be deleted vide impugned order. 8. Learned counsel for petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of Maqsooda (supra). It is submitted that same controversy was decided by this Court holding that on submission of amended plaint, defendant can file amended written statement after incorporating new pleas. To appreciate the argument, it would be gainful to quote provisions of Order XXII rule 3 and 4 CPC thus- "Order XII - Death, Marriage and Insolvency of Parties- 1. No abatement by party's death if right to sue survives The death of a plaintiff or defendant shall not cause the suit to abate if the right to sue survives. 2...... 3. Procedure in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff (1) Where one of two or more plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving plaintiff dies and the right to the sue survives, the Court, on an application made in that behalf, shall cause the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party and shall proceed with the suit. (2) Where within the time limited by law no application is made under sub-rule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the application of the defendant, the Court may award to him the costs which he may have incurred in defending the suit, to be recovered from the estate of the deceased plaintiff. 4. Procedure in case of death of one several defendants or of sole 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 sole surviving defendant dies and the right to sue survives, the Court, on an 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. (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. 1[(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 not withstanding the death of such defendant and shall have the same force and effect as if it has been pronounced before death took place." 9. Perusal of rule 3 shows that in case of death of one of several plaintiffs or of sole plaintiff, the court on an application, shall cause legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be a party. So far as rule 4 is concerned, it applied in case of death of one of the several defendants or sole defendant. Under rule 4(2) a person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. Similar provision as exists under rule 4(2) does not exists under rule 3. The case of Maqsooda was decided referring to the provisions of Order XXII rule 4 CPC and not in reference to Order XXII rule 3 CPC. It is a case where on account of death of plaintiff, their legal representatives were brought on record pursuant to provisions of Order XXII rule 3 CPC. The amendment in the plaint was only to incorporate amended cause title. Since no new plea was incorporated in the amended plaint, the defendant could not get a right to amend the written statement with incorporation of new pleas. Even in a case where amended plaint is allowed, written statement is to be restricted to the extent of new averment in the amended plaint. In any case, since the case in hand does not fall in the category where amended plaint has been filed with new averments/pleas, situation referred to above, does not apply. Incorporation of legal heirs in the array of plaintiff does not give right to a party to amend the pleas in the written statement. In any case, since the case in hand does not fall in the category where amended plaint has been filed with new averments/pleas, situation referred to above, does not apply. Incorporation of legal heirs in the array of plaintiff does not give right to a party to amend the pleas in the written statement. This is more so when on previous two occasions petitioner defendant applications to seek amendment in the written statement were dismissed. In the background aforesaid, judgment in the case of Maqsooda (supra) has no application having been decided mainly in reference to provisions of Order XXII rule 4 CPC. The present case falls under Order XXII rule 3 CPC, hence, I do not find any error in the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, writ petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Since the matter is quite old as the suit was filed in the year 1989, court below is expected of to conclude the same at the earliest.