JUDGMENT

MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1.— This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 7.1.2000 in S.B.Civil Revision Petition No. 835 of 1997.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The Revision Petition was filed in the High Court against an order dated 6.8.1997 passed by the trial Court whereby the application filed by the revisionists under Order 22, Rule 4(2), CPC read with Order 1, Rule 10, CPC was rejected.

4. The appellants are the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand. A suit was filed by the respondent herein against Kapoor Chand for specific performance of a contract for sale. It was alleged that Kapoor Chand had entered into an agreement to sell the property in dispute to the plaintiff-respondent, M/s. Paras Finance Co. In that agreement Kapoor Chand stated that the property in dispute was his self-acquired property. During the pendency of the suit Kapoor Chand died and his wife, sons etc. applied to be brought on record as legal representatives. After they were impleaded they filed an application under Order 22, Rule 4(2) read with Order 1, Rule 10, CPC praying inter alia, that they should be permitted to file additional written state¬ment and also be allowed to take such pleas which are available to them. The trial Court rejected this application against which a revision was filed by the appellant which was also dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. We are of the opinion that a party has a right to take whatever plea he/she wants to take, and hence the view taken by the High Court does not appear to be correct.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in view of Order 22, Rule 4 (2) a person who has been made a party can only take such pleas which are appropriate to his character of legal representative of the deceased. Learned counsel also submitted that two of the applicants/legal representatives of deceased, Kapoor Chand, i.e. Narainlal and Devilal, had applied to the Court under Order 1, Rule 10 to be impleaded, but their applications were rejected. An application was also filed by late Kapoor Chand praying that his sons be impleaded in the suit but that application was also rejected. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the appellants cannot be permitted to file an additional written statement in this suit.

7. Before adverting to the question involved in this case, it may be noted that in the registered sale deed dated 12.8.1960 the shop in dispute has been mentioned and the sale was shown in favour of Kapoor Chand and his sons, Narainlal, Devilal and Pukhraj. Hence, the registered sale deed itself shows that the purchaser was not Kapoor Chand alone, but also his sons as co-owners. Hence, prima facie, it seems that the sons of Kapoor Chand are also co-owners of the property in dispute. However, we are not expressing any final opinion on the question whether they are co-owners as that would be decided in the suit. But we are certainly of the opinion that the legal representatives of late Kapoor Chand have a right to take this defence by way of filing an additional written statement and adduce evidence in the suit. Hence, in our opinion, the Courts below erred in law in rejecting the applications of the heirs of Kapoor Chand to file an addi¬tional written statement.

8. Every party in a case has a right to file a written statement. This is in accordance with natural justice. The Civil Procedure Code is really the rules of natural justice which are set out in great and elaborate detail. Its purpose is to enable both parties to get a hearing. The appellants in the present case have already been made parties in the suit, but it would be strange if they are not allowed to take a defence. In our opinion, Order 22, Rule 4(2), CPC cannot be construed in the manner suggested by learned counsel for the respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Kasturi v. Iyy