1.  Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This revision arises in some peculiar circumstances viz. that the petitioner had filed a suit for perpetual injunction against one Kanhaiya Lal way back on 21.12.81 alleging inter-alia that the plaintiff owns the property purchased by him by registered sale deed dated 10.6.1902, and since then he is continuing in possession. The plaintiff also pleaded the facts about devolution of right, title, and interest of the plaintiff. With these pleadings, it was contended that there is a lane situated in the north of the plaintiff's house. This lane is the bone of contention, inasmuch its this lane is situated in the back side of the defendant's house, wherein it is apprehended by the plaintiff, that the defendant would raise construction, and has opened some windows, whereas this lane has a public utility, and every one has a right to pass and re-pass through it. The defendant Kanhaiya Lal filed his written statement on 19.5.82. Thereafter the issues were framed on 16.11.90. The parties went to trial, and the plaintiff completed his evidence. As transpires from the order sheets of the learned trial court that the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 2.7.96.

3. It is in this sequence that on 8.7.96 the defendant Kanhaiya Lal expired, and application was submitted for substitution of his legal representatives, which was ordered on 6.11.96, whereby the learned trial court also ordered/permitted the plaintiff to make consequential amendments in the plaint, as mentioned in para 3 of the application. The plaintiff was permitted to submit the consequential amended plaint within 14 days. The same was filed on 6.12.96.

4. The facts relating to the problem arising in this revision start from this point of time inasmuch as on 17.1.97 the legal representatives purportedly filed a fresh written statement, purporting to file written statement to the amended plaint, and after filing of this written statement dated 17.1.97, the learned trial court on 18.3.97 framed two additional issues, as issue No. 4A and 4B. Thereafter the case was fixed for defendant's evidence, and when the defendant (legal representative) Mahendra Kumar, D.W.1 was being examined, wanted to exhibit certain documents an objection was raised on the side of the plaintiff, whereupon the statement was reserved.

5. Then comprehending the totality of the circumstances, at this stage, the plaintiff filed the present application purportedly under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code on 19.9.97, contending that the written statement filed by the legal representatives on 17.1.97 incorporates entirely new facts, and wrong facts, and thus the legal representatives are now attempting to take up a new stand, different from the one taken by the original defendant, and it was contended that the legal representatives are not entitled to take a different stand, but can only contest the suit by taking the pleadings only, as are appropriate to their character as legal representatives. With this contention it was prayed that the amended written statement be struck off the record, and the legal representatives be directed to keep their stand within the limit to which they are entitled. A reply to this application was filed on 14.10.97, inter-alia contending that the copy of the fresh written statement was already given to the counsel for the plaintiff, thereafter, after a number of adjournments additional issues were struck, and all this was done in the presence of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, but no objection at all was raised. Likewise the action of the learned trial court in framing additional issues was also not assailed by filing ally appeal or revision etc. It was then contended that it was during the examination of D.W.1 that an irrelevant objection was raised on the side of the plaintiff, to the effect that the documents produced with the fresh written statement cannot be allowed to proved by the legal representa