JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. The instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 27.3.2014 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, District Solan, rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff’) under Section 151 read with Order 8 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC’) praying therein for rejection of amended written statement filed by the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants’). 2. Briefly stated the facts, as emerged from the record, are that the plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7, whereas defendant No.8 was arrayed as proforma defendant. During the course of trial, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC for carrying out amendment in the plaint since there was a clerical/mathematical error in the original plaint filed by the plaintiff. By way of amendment, plaintiff proposed to make change in para-2 of the plaint, whereby plaintiff intended to substitute dated 14.12.1976 by 14.12.1978. Plaintiff in application claimed that inadvertently date of agreement was mentioned as 14.12.1976, whereas agreement between the parties was entered into on 14.12.1978. Aforesaid application was resisted by the defendants, but fact remains that learned trial Court below allowed the aforesaid amendment. Accordingly, plaintiff filed amended plaint (Annexure P-2). 3. At this stage, it may be noticed that predecessor-in-interest of defendants No.1 to 7; namely Shri Sukh Ram, had already filed written statement to the un-amended plaint i.e. Annexure P-3. But since he expired during the pendency of the suit, his legal representatives (for short 'LRs’) were brought on record and arrayed as defendants No.1 to 7. Consequent upon filing of amended plaint by plaintiff, LRs of deceased defendant No.1 i.e. 1 (a) to 1 (g) filed written statement. Plaintiff, being aggrieved with filing of amended written statement by the LRs of deceased defendant No.1, filed an application under Section 151 read with Order 8 Rule 9 CPC praying therein for rejection of written statement filed by the defendants as same was beyond the scope of amendment. 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure P-8), rejected the application preferred on behalf of the plaintiff (for short 'impugned order’). 4. Learned trial Court vide order dated 27.3.2014 (Annexure P-8), rejected the application preferred on behalf of the plaintiff (for short 'impugned order’). Learned trial Court, while dismissing the application, came to the conclusion that since defendant No.2 had not filed any written statement before settlement of issues, written statement filed by him is liable to be rejected and he cannot take undue advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint. But as far as amended written statement filed by defendants No.1 (a) to (g) is concerned, learned Court below came to the conclusion that defendant No.1 is free to take many pleas, whatsoever, of his choice and his written statement cannot be confined to amendment made in the plaint filed by the plaintiff. Learned Court below further concluded that perusal of the written statements filed by defendant nowhere suggests that defendant No.1 has withdrawn any statement made in his earlier statement but he has taken some additional plea in the amended written statement for which he is entitled. In this regard learned trial Court placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in V.K.N. Pillai vs. P.Pillai AIR 2005 SC 614 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that Courts should be more generous in allowing amendment of written statement as question of prejudice is less likely to operate in that event. 5. Plaintiff, being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the impugned order dated 27.03.2014, passed by the learned trial Court, approached this Court by way of instant petition praying therein for quashing and setting aside of the same. 6. Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior Advocate duly assisted by Mr.Janesh Gupta, Advocate, vehemently argued that impugned order is not based upon correct appreciation of the facts as well as law and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr.Gupta termed impugned order as highly unjust, illegal, arbitrary, against facts and law and prayed that the same cannot be allowed to sustain. Mr. Gupta contended that no fresh plea could have been raised by defendants in the amended written statement while specifically filing reply to the amended petition preferred on behalf of plaintiff without leave of the Court. With a view to substantiate his arguments that there is drastic deviation/change in the amended written statement filed by defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g), Mr. With a view to substantiate his arguments that there is drastic deviation/change in the amended written statement filed by defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g), Mr. Gupta made this Court to travel through the original plaint vis-à-vis original written statement filed by the parties. While referring to the averments contained in the original plaint, Mr. Gupta stated that by way of amendment only correction of date was carried out with the permission of the Court by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, whereas defendants, without obtaining any leave from the Court, made drastic changes in the written statement, wherein altogether new pleas have been taken in the written statement. As per Mr. Gupta, since amendment of plaint was only to rectify the clerical/mathematical mistake, no fresh plea could have been taken by the defendants for filing written statement, which have drastically changed the original stand taken by their predecessor-in-interest. He further stated that since defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) stepped into the shoes of original defendant No.1, they had not independent stand and they were bound by the written statement filed by their predecessor-in-interest, but bare perusal of amended written statement clearly suggests that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) changed the entire complexion of the original pleadings placed on record by their predecessor-in-interest, which was not permissible without obtaining leave of the Court by moving appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. While concluding his arguments, Mr. Gupta forcefully contended that whole approach adopted by learned trial Court, while rejecting the application on behalf of plaintiff for rejection of written statement filed by defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) is not only erroneous but patently adverse and as such same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7. Mr.Bimal Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, duly assisted by Mr.Vineet Vashishta, Advocate, supported the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court. While referring to the impugned order, Mr.Bimal Gupta, strenuously argued that there is no illegality/infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, as such, there is no scope of interference as far as this Court is concerned, because bare perusal of impugned order suggests that same is based upon correct appreciation of law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court and respective High Courts. Mr.Gupta further contended that when defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) were impleaded as LRs of defendant No.1, they have every right to file written statement and as such there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders passed by learned trial Court and same deserves to be upheld. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid arguments, he invited the attention of this Court to Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 CPC to demonstrate that being LRs of original defendant No.1, they have every right to file additional written statement taking therein inasmuch as pleas appropriate to their character as LRs of the deceased defendant. However, Mr.Gupta, while refuting the contention put forth on behalf of the plaintiff that defendants by way of amended written statement carried out drastic deviation/changes in the written statement, made this Court to travel through the amended written statement to suggest that no additional pleas have been taken by the defendants in the amended written statement, rather pleas, already having been taken by original defendant, have been simply elaborated and explained and as such there is no inconsistency/ variation in the pleas taken in the pleadings originally made by deceased defendant No.1. In support of his aforesaid contention that being LRs of deceased defendant No.1, defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) were entitled to file independent defence appropriate to their character, Mr.Gupta placed reliance upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, our own High Court as well as other High Courts in Abdul Razak (Dead) through LRs and Others vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and Others, (2010)2 SCC 432 , Sumtibai and Others vs. Paras Finance Co. Regd. Partnership Firm Beawer (Raj.) thorough Mankanwar (Smt) w/o Parasmal Chordia (Dead) and Others, (2007)10 SCC 82 , M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corpn.Ltd. and Another vs. Jahan Khan, (2007)10 SCC 88 and Sawan Singh vs. Radha Kishan, 1979 Law Suit (HP) 11, Smt.Amar Devi vs. Smt.Shakntla Devi, RSA No.81 of 1969, decided on May, 1, 1975, Sayed Sirajul Hasan vs. Sh. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur and Others, AIR 1992 Delhi and Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram rep. by its Executive Trustee D. Srinivasan vs. Mrs. Gnanasoundari, AIR 2004 (Mad.) 513. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully. 9. Syed Murtaza Ali Khan Bahadur and Others, AIR 1992 Delhi and Sri Srinivasmurthy Mandiram rep. by its Executive Trustee D. Srinivasan vs. Mrs. Gnanasoundari, AIR 2004 (Mad.) 513. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully. 9. Before proceeding to decide the controversy at hand on merits, it would be appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of Order 6 Rule 17 as well as Order 8 Rule 9 CPC, which are as follows : “ORDER 6 - PLEADINGS GENERALLY 1. Pleading— "Pleading", shall mean plaint or written statement. 2. Pleading to state material facts and not evidence Rule 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.” ORDER 8 - WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OF AND COUNTER-CLAIM. Rule 9. Subsequent pleadings— No pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such terms as the Court thinks fit; but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time of not more than 30 days for for presenting the same.” 10. The aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that in normal circumstances any party to lis can move an application under aforesaid provisions of law for carrying out amendment, which may be necessary for determining the real controversy between the parties. Though Court has power to allow amendments even after commencement of trial but in that eventuality party seeking amendment needs to prove on record that inspite of due diligence it could not have moved the application for amendment before the commencement of trial. 11. Similarly, Order 8 Rule 9 clearly suggests that no pleadings, subsequent to written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set up a counter claim, can be presented except by leave of Court. 11. Similarly, Order 8 Rule 9 clearly suggests that no pleadings, subsequent to written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set up a counter claim, can be presented except by leave of Court. In the event of application having been made on behalf of party to carry amendment in the written statement, Court may fix time which may not exceed 30 days from presenting the same. But fact remains that for carrying out amendment, if any, in the written statement, prior leave of the Court is necessary. 12. Conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions of law i.e. Order 8 Rule 9 and Order 6 Rule 17 CPC clearly lays down a rule of pleadings. If a party intends to make further pleadings, after filing of the original plaint, on account of his having failed to make certain pleas in the original plaint, can certainly file an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave of Court to carry out necessary amendment. Similarly, if defendant wants to make further pleading after the written statement having been filed to raise certain pleas in the original written statement can move an application under aforesaid provisions of law. But in both these eventualities, parties need to move an application seeking therein leave of Court to amend their respective pleadings. 13. Conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that party seeking to file amended plaint/written statement necessarily need to show to the Court the circumstances as to why they failed to raise plea in the original pleadings preferred by them and definitely amendment cannot be claimed as a matter of right because close reading of aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that Court in exercise of its discretion may or may not grant leave to present a fresh pleading. 14. In the instant case, as clearly emerge from the pleadings, as have been filed by both the parties, plaintiff moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking therein relief to amend original plaint, wherein inadvertently date of agreement was not correctly mentioned, accordingly after obtaining leave of the Court plaintiff carried out amendment by substituting date of agreement from 14.12.1976 to 14.12.1978. At this stage it may be noticed that prior to aforesaid amendment in the plaint, original defendant No.1 had already filed written statement specifically answering all the averments contained in the original plaint. At this stage it may be noticed that prior to aforesaid amendment in the plaint, original defendant No.1 had already filed written statement specifically answering all the averments contained in the original plaint. Since Court had allowed the amendment, defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) being LRs of original defendant No.1 filed amended written statement, perusal whereof certainly suggests that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) raised many pleas which changed the complexion of original written statement filed by defendant No.1. 15. Mr.Bimal Gupta, learned Senior counsel representing defendants-respondents, while refuting the contention put forth on behalf of Mr.Bhupinder Gupta, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, though stated that there is no drastic change/deviation from the original stand taken by the original defendant No.1 in original written statement, but this Court perused both the written statements i.e. amended and un-amended juxtaposing each other, which clearly suggests that defendants raised numerous new pleas, which were not originally taken in the original written statement filed by the deceased defendant No.1. True, it is that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) by way of amended written statement made an attempt to elaborate and explain the pleas already taken by the deceased defendant No.1 in original written statement, but perusal of amended written statement clearly suggests that in the aforesaid process LRs of deceased defendant No.1 have carved out altogether new case to the detriment of plaintiff who only after seeking leave of the Court corrected date of agreement of contract. As has been discussed hereinabove, pleadings filed by both the parties can be suitably amended at any stage by the respective parties in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, but in that regard party, intending to carry out amendment, needs to file an appropriate application assigning therein the reasons for amendment and amendment, if any, can be carried out only after obtaining the leave of the Court. 16. In the present case, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g), before filing amended written statement, wherein entire complexion of original written statement has been changed, moved appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment in the written statement. 16. In the present case, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g), before filing amended written statement, wherein entire complexion of original written statement has been changed, moved appropriate application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC praying for amendment in the written statement. There is no dispute that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) had right to file additional written statement to the amended plaint but definitely under the garb of that right defendants could not amend the entire written statement filed by their predecessor-in-interest. At best defendant, while filing reply to the amended petition, could only carry out amendment to the extent the plaint is amended. In case written statement in toto is/was to be amended, defendants ought to have filed an independent application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC seeking leave of the Court to amend the written statement. Court, while exercising powers under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, may or may not grant leave to amend written statement. 17. In the present case, this Court, after perusing the entire pleadings made available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) without obtaining leave of the Court amended written statement beyond the pleadings of amended plaint and as such this Court is not in a position to accept the reasoning assigned by the Court below while rejecting the application under Order 8 Rule 9 CPC filed by the plaintiff to reject the written statement. This Court, while examining the correctness and genuineness of the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court below, made an attempt to lay its hand to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court as mentioned by trial Court i.e. V.K.N. Pillai vs. P.Pillai, AIR 2005 SC 614 , but there is no such judgment available in the book. 18. No doubt, Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that Court should be more generous in allowing amendments, but in that regard parties seeking amendment needs to apply in terms of specific provisions of law citing therein reasons for carrying out amendment in the pleadings. 18. No doubt, Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly held that Court should be more generous in allowing amendments, but in that regard parties seeking amendment needs to apply in terms of specific provisions of law citing therein reasons for carrying out amendment in the pleadings. In the instant case, as has been discussed in detail, defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) being LRs of original defendant No.1 in the garb of reply to the amended plaint carried out whole sale amendment in the written statement that too without obtaining leave of the Court. Amendment, if any, in the written statement by the defendant was justified to the extent of amendment carried out in the plaint, but, as has been observed hereinabove, perusal of amended written statement clearly suggests that entire stand taken by original defendant in original written statement has been changed. Learned trial Court while rejecting the application has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in Ram Chandra vs. Mahindra Singh, AIR 1980 Rajasthan 04 (303), but same may not be applicable in view of law laid down by our own High Court in Sawan Singh and Others vs. Radha Kishan and Others, AIR 1980 HP 8 , wherein this Court has concluded that new or inconsistent pleas can only be taken by filing appropriate application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. In Sawan Singh’s case supra, this Court in paras 11 and 12 has held as under:- “11. As evident from the above noted observation, the learned Judge was led away by the consideration that rules of procedure are handmaids of justice, and since he was considering the amendment of written statement, he was inclined to hold that in defence all plausible pleas can be taken by a defendant. It was held that once the court directed the additional written statement to be filed, impliedly the court permitted the defendant to take up even inconsistent pleas without seeking for an amendment under Order VI, Rule 17. It was held that once the court directed the additional written statement to be filed, impliedly the court permitted the defendant to take up even inconsistent pleas without seeking for an amendment under Order VI, Rule 17. In the subsequent decision New Bank of India Ltd. v. Smt. Raj Rani, AIR 1966 Punj 162 (supra) the learned Judge, who spoke for the Bench in Girdharilal v. Krishan Datt, AIR 1960 Punj 575 (supra), was the Presiding Judge and once again he reiterated his previous view with slight modification that one has to see the order granting amendment of the plaint and permission for the filing of additional written statement. If the said order is unrestricted and merely says that additional written statement be filed, it would mean that the defendant gets the unrestricted right to take up any pleas he prefers, may be inconsistent with the original pleas or may be new pleas or may consist of new grounds. In that case, the plaintiff sought for the amendment because a certain fixed deposit receipt had matured and he wanted a decree for that amount as well. The court asked for additional written statement. New pleas were taken and it was contended that without amendment in the pleadings, such new pleas could not be raised. The learned Judge upheld his previous view, and held that the defendant got untrammelled right to take up any pleas he preferred, and the order under Rule 9 of Order VIII was required to be seen and if there was nothing to indicate in that order that pleadings were restricted, new pleas or even inconsistent pleas could be taken up by the defendant. These two cases were followed in Lachhmi Devi (supra) and the learned Judge of this Court while allowing the plaintiff to amend the plaint because a certain party was to be added, asked for additional written statement. New and inconsistent pleas were taken in the additional written statement and the same were allowed by the court. Thus the above noted three cases took the view contrary to that in Tek Chand Chitkara v. Union of India, ILR (1974) Him Pra 616 (supra). 12. As we have already pointed out, Order VI deals with pleadings generally and the provisions of that order do apply to plaint as well as to written statement. Thus the above noted three cases took the view contrary to that in Tek Chand Chitkara v. Union of India, ILR (1974) Him Pra 616 (supra). 12. As we have already pointed out, Order VI deals with pleadings generally and the provisions of that order do apply to plaint as well as to written statement. Under Order VIII, Rule 9, there is a provision for subsequent written statement. Nevertheless Rule 9, Order VIII has to stand with Rule 7 and 17 of Order VI. Under Rule 9, Order VIII, additional written statement can be permitted to be filed. But that does not mean that Rule 7 and 17 of Order VI have been given a go-bye. If such additional written statement contains any departure in the pleadings within the meaning of Order VI, Rule 7, in our opinion Rule 17, Order VI will be effective and a proper amendment of the pleadings will have to be asked for. Without the court applying its mind as to whether there has been really a departure in the pleadings and as to whether the amendments should be permitted for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy, in OUT opinion, the mere fact that additional written statement has been permitted to be filed under Rule 9 of Order VIII will not give a right to the defendant to raise new or inconsistent pleas, or to make allegation contrary to the facts alleged in the previous pleadings. The observations, of the learned Judge in Girdharilal (supra) and New Bank of India Ltd. (supra) depending upon the nature and application of the law of procedure, in our opinion will be of no avail, the reason being that it would by itself be a rule of law as to whether Rule 7 and 17 of Order VI are not required to be complied with and merely because Rule 9 of Order VIII has been observed, a departure would be permitted in the pleadings without seeking for an amendment under Rule 17 of Order VI. That would not be a question of procedure, although while allowing or disallowing the amendment the court can always take a liberal view and may even permit the defendant to raise whatever defence he choses to take in his favour. That would not be a question of procedure, although while allowing or disallowing the amendment the court can always take a liberal view and may even permit the defendant to raise whatever defence he choses to take in his favour. Therefore, in our opinion, it will be a question of the application of the law pointed out in Rule 7 and 17 of Order VI and not a pure question of procedure to be decided for allowing a departure in the pleadings under a pretence that additional written statement is permitted to be filed under Rule 9 of Order VIII. With respects to the opinion expressed in the above-noted two Punjab cases we have further to observe that the language used in the order allowing the amendment in the plaint or allowing the additional written statement to be filed would be of no consequence. It is obviously correct that under Order VIII, Rule 9 the Court would allow the subsequent written statement merely because the plaint was amended. While making that order the court is not expected to be aware of the pleas which may be taken while filing such additional written statement. It is only when the additional written statement is filed that the court will become conversant with the pleas taken in that additional written statement. At that point of time Rule 7 and 17 of Order VI will come into play and in case in the opinion of the court the additional written statement is not confined to the amendments sought for in the plaint, the defendant will be compelled to file an application for amendment of the pleadings under Rule 17 of Order VI. Thereafter the court will examine the entire matter, and if the amendments sought for were necessary for determining the real question in controversy the court may or may not allow the amendments. In fact, the mere direction by the court that additional written statement be filed, would convey only one meaning that the additional written statement hereinafter to be filed has to confine to the amendments already sought for by the plaintiff. If the court prejudges the issues and permits additional pleas to be taken by the defendant, in a particular case it may elaborate its order seeking for the additional written statement by making pertinent observations. If the court prejudges the issues and permits additional pleas to be taken by the defendant, in a particular case it may elaborate its order seeking for the additional written statement by making pertinent observations. But, as we have stated above, we cannot conceive of a case in which the court will be in a position to prejudge the issues and make an elaboration in its order to enable new pleas in additional written statement. At any rate, in the case before us, the orders were simple under Order VIII, Rule 9 permitting additional written statements to be filed. After that stage the court was not aware as to what sort of pleas were likely to be raised in the additional written statements. The question arose at the time when the additional written statements were filed and the court found that there was departure in the pleadings and rightly asked for the amendment under Rule 17 of Order VI.” (pp.12-13) 19. Now, this Court would be adverting to the another contention put forth on behalf of the counsel representing the defendants that being LRs of deceased defendant No.1, they are entitled to file written statement appropriate to their character as LRs of deceased defendant. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow the provisions contained in Order 22 Rules 3 & 4 CPC : “ORDER 22 - DEATH, MARRIAGE AND INSOLVENCY OR PARTIES Rule-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 of several defendants or of sole defendant— (1) …. …. …. …. 4. Procedure in case of death of one of several defendants or of sole defendant— (1) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. (2) Any person so made a party may make any defence appropriate to his character as legal representative of the deceased defendant.” 20. Before perusing the aforesaid provisions of law, it may be stated that sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 22 definitely does not deal with rule of pleadings i.e. Order 6 Rule 17 and Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Aforesaid provisions of law are nothing to do with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and same are independent of Order 8 Rule 9. Close scrutiny of aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that it is complete in itself and it enables a person, who has been made a party under Order 22 Rule 4 to take any defence, which may be appropriate to his/her character as LRs of deceased defendant. The aforesaid provisions of law clearly suggests that being LRs of deceased i.e. the original defendant/party can file any defence which is appropriate to his character as LRs of deceased and Court has no discretion to stop or debar him from doing so. But careful perusal of the aforesaid provisions clearly suggests that a party, seeking to file an additional written statement being LRs of deceased defendant, necessarily need to move an application under Order 8 Rule 9 read with Order 22 Rule 4 CPC and seek permission of the Court before raising a defence appropriate to his character as LRs of deceased defendant. Party applying under Order 8 Rule 9 needs to assign cogent reason for additional written statement because written statement, if any, in terms of sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 22 would be additional written statement on behalf of LRs appropriate to their character as LRs of deceased defendant. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 22 is not a rule of pleading and it has no relation, whatsoever, with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and similarly the same are independent of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 4 of Order 22 is not a rule of pleading and it has no relation, whatsoever, with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and similarly the same are independent of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC. Sub-rule 2 Rule 4 of Order 22 has its own application and limitation and it enables a person, who has been made a party under Order 22 Rule 4, to take any defence subject to the condition that defence so made should be appropriate to his character as LRs of deceased defendant. Whereas, Order 8 Rule 9 empowers the Court with a discretion to allow a defence or to file written statement; meaning thereby party cannot raise as a matter of right any fresh plea by way of filing written statement without obtaining leave of the Court, which the Court, in its discretion, may or may not grant. 21. But as per case titled: J.C. Chatterjee & Others vs. Shri Sri Kishan Tandon and another, AIR 1972 SC 2526 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that if LRs of deceased defendant chooses to raise any such defence, he being entitled to do so, Court has no discretion to stop or debar him from doing so and in that eventuality Order 8 Rule 9 may not have any application. But aforesaid reference/observation in the judgment cited hereinabove was made by the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of entitlement of filing additional written statement by the LRs of deceased defendant under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. 22. Close scrutiny of aforesaid provisions of law under Order 22 Rule 4 clearly suggests that leave is given to the substituted defendants to render appearance and to make any defence appropriate to their character as LRs of deceased defendant and leave is given to these defendants being LRs to file additional written statement. Once additional written statement in terms of Order 22 Rule 4 is filed by LRs of original defendant, Court before whom written statement is filed needs to examine whether defence taken by the LRs is appropriate to his/their character of LRs of the deceased defendant or not. Once additional written statement in terms of Order 22 Rule 4 is filed by LRs of original defendant, Court before whom written statement is filed needs to examine whether defence taken by the LRs is appropriate to his/their character of LRs of the deceased defendant or not. Though plain reading of Order 8 Rule 9 CPC suggests that grant of leave before making amendment in written statement or filing additional statement is necessary, but if Order 22 Rule 4 CPC is read in its entirety with the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, referred hereinabove, it suggests that LRs have the right to make the defence appropriate to their character as LRs and Order 8 Rule 9 has no application in that event and Court has no discretion to stop or debar them from doing so. 23. In the instant case there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) filed additional written statement in terms of Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 2 as LRs of the deceased defendant where they had independent right to raise any defence appropriate to their character as LRs of the deceased defendant. Rather, they filed amended written statement pursuant to amendment carried out by the plaintiff in plaint after seeking due leave of the Court by moving an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. This Court is of the view that since defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) entered into the shoes of original defendant, who had already filed written statement to the plaint, they could only carry out amendment, if any, to the extent of amendment carried out in the plaint and by no stretch of imagination they could carry out wholesale amendment in the written statement, as has been observed above. There is no quarrel that under Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 2, defendants being LRs of deceased defendant have/had right to raise any defence, which is appropriate to their character as LRs, but in that eventuality they could only file an additional written statement in their independent capacity incorporating therein their defence appropriate to their character. But in the instant case, LRs of deceased defendant without resorting to the provisions contained in Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 2 CPC filed amended written statement to the original written statement, that is not permissible. But in the instant case, LRs of deceased defendant without resorting to the provisions contained in Order 22 Rule 4 sub-rule 2 CPC filed amended written statement to the original written statement, that is not permissible. Once LRs No.1 (a) to 1 (g) chose to file amendment to the written statement originally filed by their predecessor-in-interest, they could only restrict themselves to the stand already taken by their predecessor-in-interest. New pleas, if any, in defence appropriate to their character could only be taken by defendants No.1 (a) to 1 (g) being LRs of deceased defendant in terms of Order 22 Rule 4 by way of filing additional written statement. 24. Perusal of the judgments relied upon hereinabove by learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of defendants clearly suggests that LRs of deceased defendant can raise, as a matter of right, any defence which is appropriate to his/their character as LRs of deceased defendant and Court has no discretion to stop or de-bar him/them from doing so. But in the present case, as has been discussed in detail, there is nothing on record suggestive of the fact that defendants 1 (a) to 1 (g) while carrying out amendment in the original written statement filed by their predecessor-in-interest exercised their right as envisaged under Order 22 Rule 4 (2) because at no point of time additional written statement, if any, in terms of aforesaid provision of law was filed. 25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made hereinabove, impugned order passed by learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside and amended written statement filed by defendants 1 (a) to 1 (g) is rejected. However, it may be clarified that defendants being LRs of original defendant No.1 are always at liberty to file additional written statement in terms of provisions of Order 22 Rule 4, if so advised. This petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Interim order, if any, is vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of.