Civil Revision No. 677 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 677 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.07.2009 Harvinder Kaur Mankoo ....Petitioner versus Karam Singh Mankoo ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Ms. D.A. Dubey, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Rohan Chaudhary, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) CM No. 3259-CII of 2009 Allowed. The applicant petitioner is exempted from filing the certified copies of Annexures P-1 and P-2, and is permitted to place on record the true copies thereof. CR No. 677 of 2009 This revision petition is directed against the order dated Civil Revision No. 677 of 2009 (O&M) -2- 6.6.2008, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing an application moved by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure for bringing her on record as legal representative of petitioner No. 2 i.e. Amrit Pal Singh Mankoo, who died during the pendency of the suit. The petitioner along with her deceased son filed a suit for maintenance as well as for share in the property, by claiming rights through their deceased husband/father Kuldeep Singh Mankoo. The learned trial Court dismissed the application by holding, that the right of maintenance of the minor was personal right, therefore, the petitioner had no surviving right to sue, therefore, she could not be brought on record as legal representative. The impugned order cannot be sustained, as the petitioner and her son was not only claiming maintenance, but also claiming share in the property. Whether the petitioner would be entitled to the share or not, is to be decided after the parties lead their evidence. On facts of the case, it could not be said that right to sue had not survived to the petitioner being mother of plaintiff No. 2. In the event of any right qua share in the property, to which her son may be found entitled to at the time of filing of the suit, would certainly be heritable by the petitioner, being mother and legal heir under Class – I of the Hindu Succession Act. In the application moved, no claim was raised qua the maintenance. The application was for bringing on record the legal representative of deceased plaintiff in the suit. For the reasons stated, revision is allowed, impugned order is Civil Revision No. 677 of 2009 (O&M) -3- set aside and the application moved by the petitioner under Order 22 Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure is allowed, but with no order as to costs. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge July 31, 2009 rs