IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.4461 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision : 10.12.2009. Sarita .....Petitioner versus Chief Administrator, U.T.Admn, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- ORDER Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.8.2007 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh, whereby an application under Order 22 Rule 2 CPC, moved by the petitioner for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased- defendant No.3-Mohan Lal son of Harbans Lal, has been dismissed. Notice of motion was issued. However, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner has filed a petition under Sections 14 and 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act (old Act). Besides the Chandigarh Administration, she impleaded her father Mohan Lal as respondent No.3, C.R. No.4461 of 2007 (O&M) 2 her mother Smt.Santosh as respondent No.5 and her uncle (brother of her father) as respondent No.4. During the pendency of those proceedings, the petitioner's father-Mohan Lal-respondent No.3 is said to have passed away on 20.3.2003. The petitioner moved an application to bring all the legal representatives of her deceased-father on record which included her mother-already respondent No.5 and her two brothers, namely, Rajiv Madan and Nitin Madan, besides herself. The said application has been dismissed by the Civil Court after observing that the application was moved even before the death of respondent No.3 and that respondent Nos.3 & 5 have not been appearing in the petition since the year 2002. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am satisfied that both the reasons given by the trial Court are immaterial and irrelevant to the issue involved. Whether the legal representatives of the deceased- respondent No.3 would contest the arbitration proceedings or not, is not an issue to be taken into consideration at the time of their impleadment as legal representatives. Since the petitioner cannot continue with the proceedings against a dead person, the legal representatives could be permitted to be brought on record for the limited purpose of continuation of the arbitration proceedings. This, however, can be done without prejudice to the objections, if any, to be raised by the other respondents. So far as the date of moving the application for impleadment of the legal representatives is concerned, the same appears to be a typographical error only. C.R. No.4461 of 2007 (O&M) 3 For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 7.8.2007 is set-aside and besides respondent No.5, two sons of the deceased-respondent No.3, namely, Rajiv Madan and Nitin Madan, are ordered to be impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased-respondent No.3-Mohan Lal. Dasti. 10-12-2009 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE