JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Petitioner as well as proforma respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 466 of 2008. 2. Suit, being O.S. No. 466 of 2008, was filed by the plaintiffs for the declaration to declare that plaintiffs have matured their title by way of adverse possession and are owners of the property in question and further for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the original defendants not to make any interference by any means in the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in question. Initially, both the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.2012. Thereafter, on the application of the defendant No.2, moved under Order 9 Rule 7 of the C.P.C., ex-parte proceedings against the defendant No.2 were set aside and he was granted time to file written statement vide order dated 01.08.2013. 3. Original defendant No.1 expired on 07.03.2013. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the C.P.C. for the substitution of the LRs of the original defendant No.1 which was allowed by the learned Trial Court and, thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein were substituted as legal heirs of the original defendant No.1 and they filed their written statement before the Trial Court. 4. Thereafter, plaintiffs moved an application, paper No.76-C, to the effect that since original defendant No.1 was directed to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.05.2012 and ex-parte proceeding order dated 24.05.2012 was never set aside or recalled, therefore, legal heirs of original defendant No.1 had absolutely no legal right to file their written statement without setting aside the ex-parte order. Consequently, written statement filed by the LRs of defendant No.1 be returned to them. 5. Learned Trial Court vide order dated 03.08.2013, was pleased to reject the application, paper No.76-C, moved by the plaintiffs. Feeling aggrieved, Civil Revision was preferred before the learned District Judge, which was heard and dismissed by the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.09.2013. Feeing aggrieved, one of the plaintiffs, has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, while impleading other plaintiffs as formal respondents, assailing the judgment dated 21.09.2013, passed by the Revisional Court as well as order dated 03.08.2013, passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. I have heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and have carefully perused the record. 7. 6. I have heard Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and have carefully perused the record. 7. In view of the above, the short question which arises in the present petition is as to whether legal heirs of the defendant, who was being proceeded ex-parte, are entitled to file their written statement after their substitution without setting aside the ex-parte proceedings order against the original defendant ? 8. Important facts have already been narrated hereinbefore. 9. Order 22, Rule 4 of the C.P.C. reads as under :- “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 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. (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,— 4 (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 representative 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. Plain reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 22 C.P.C. would go on to demonstrate that legal heir may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant. 11. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1653 , while placing reliance on the earlier judgments of the Apex Court, i.e. Bal Kishan Vs. Om Prakash AIR 1986 SC 1952 and Jagdish Chandra Chatterjee Vs. Sri Kishan (1973) 1 SCR 850 , has held as under:- “The sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order 22 authorised the legal representative of a deceased defendant to file an additional written statement or statement of objections raising all pleas which the deceased-defendant had or could have raised except those which were personal to the deceased-defendant or respondent.” The same view was expressed in Jagdish Chander Chatterjee & Ors. vs. Sri Kishan & Anr., 1973 (1) SCR 850 wherein this Court said: “The legal representative of the deceased respondent was entitled to make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased respondent. In other words, the heirs and the legal representatives could urge all contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased. Indeed this does not prevent the legal representative from setting up also their own independent title, in which case there could be no objection to the court impleading them not merely as the Lrs. Indeed this does not prevent the legal representative from setting up also their own independent title, in which case there could be no objection to the court impleading them not merely as the Lrs. of the deceased but also in their personal capacity avoiding thereby a separate suit for a decision on the title.” 12. In view of the dictum of the Apex Court, legal representatives of a deceased / defendant has a legal right to file additional written statement raising all pleas which the deceased defendant had or could have raised except those which were personal to the deceased-defendant or respondent. In view of the findings recorded hereinbefore, I hold that LRs of deceased defendant who was ex-parte may also file additional written statement after their substitution. 13. At this stage, Mr. Nagesh Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants submits that no suit is maintainable on the ground of adverse possession and adverse possession cannot be used as a sword and can only be used as a shield/ defence. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents/defendants can be looked into very well by the learned Trial Court while deciding the suit. 14. In view of the above, I do not find any justification to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Trial Court. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.