C. R. No. 1082 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 1082 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 19, 2010 Kashmir Singh and another .... Petitioners Vs. Smt. Gobinder Kaur and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Aman Bahri, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Defendants no.3 and 8 have preferred the instant revision petition assailing order dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, thereby allowing application for impleading respondents no.1 to 3 as legal representatives of plaintiff Kuldeep Singh (since deceased). Respondents no.1 to 3 filed application (Annexure P-1) for being impleaded as legal representatives of Kuldeep Singh (since deceased) alleging that respondents no.1 and 2 are wife and son respectively of the deceased Kuldeep Singh, whereas respondent no.3 is second wife of the deceased. It is also alleged that Kuldeep Singh died on 16.02.2006. Kuldeep Singh also had another son Gagandeep Singh, who died on 21.03.2006 i.e. subsequent to the death of Kuldeep Singh. Accordingly, share of Gagandeep Singh inherited by him from Kuldeep Singh has now C. R. No. 1082 of 2010 2 been inherited by his real mother Ranwinder Kaur – respondent no.3 (second wife of Kuldeep Singh). It was accordingly stated in the application that respondents no. 1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased Kuldeep Singh. Some of the defendants contested the aforesaid application by filing reply Annexure P-2, wherein it was alleged that second marriage of Kuldeep Singh with respondent no.3 was void under the Hindu Marriage Act. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that respondent no.3, who is second wife of the deceased plaintiff, cannot be said to be his legal heir because second marriage of respondent no.3 with the deceased plaintiff was void. There can be no dispute with the legal proposition, but in the circumstances of the instant case, the contention that respondent no.3 is not legal heir of the deceased plaintiff, cannot be accepted. Gagandeep Singh was son of Kuldeep Singh from his second wife Ranwinder Kaur. Accordingly, Gagandeep Singh inherited share in property left by Kuldeep Singh. On subsequent death of Gagandeep Singh, his said share was inherited by his mother Ranwinder Kaur – respondent no.3. For this reason, Ranwinder Kaur is also legal heir of the deceased plaintiff having inherited a share in his estate through their son Gagandeep Singh, who died later on. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the question of legal representatives of a deceased party has to be decided before proceeding with the trial of the suit. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaladi Suguna (Dead) through L. Rs. vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Ors. reported as AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2866. However, in the instant case, the trial court has already decided the said question by passing the C. R. No. 1082 of 2010 3 impugned order. The petitioners have not even alleged that Kuldeep Singh left behind any other heir nor denied the relationship of respondents no.1 to 3 with the deceased plaintiff. The petitioners also do not claim to have any share in the estate of the deceased plaintiff. Accordingly, estate of the deceased plaintiff can be properly represented in the suit by respondents no.1 to 3. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order of the trial court. The revision petition lacks any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. February 19, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE