Judgment :- This Civil Revision petition has been brought forth challenging the order of the learned Principal District Judge, Cuddalore made in I.A.No.168 of 2003 dismissing the application of the revision petitioner to add herself as legal representative of her deceased mother. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner one by name Mangalam Ammal filed a suit for recovery of past maintenance arrears and also for future maintenance in O.S.No.38 of 1994. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court. She preferred an appeal as an Indigent Person. While that application was pending consideration, she died. An application was filed by the present revision petitioner to add herself as legal representative of the deceased and the said application was also dismissed. By way of a common order, other two applications filed by the same petitioner to add as legal representatives of the said Mangalam, were allowed. 4. From the submissions made and the materials available on record, it could be seen that three suits were originally pending before the trial Court. One suit in O.S.No.100 of 1992 was filed by the son of said Mangalam Ammal for partition and the same was decreed. The same was challenged by way of an appeal before the trial Court in A.S.No.142 of 2002. The said Mangalam Ammal filed a partition suit in O.S.No.375 of 1994. On trial, the same was dismissed and an appeal was preferred in A.S.No.141 of 2002. In those two appeals, the present revision petitioner filed two applications in I.A.Nos.162 and 163 of 2003 to add herself as legal representative of deceased Mangalam Ammal. Both the applications have been ordered. But the application in I.A.No.168 of 2003 to add as herself as legal representative pending the appeal, in which originally the said Mangalam Ammal is shown as Indigent Person, has been dismissed. 5. Both the applications have been ordered. But the application in I.A.No.168 of 2003 to add as herself as legal representative pending the appeal, in which originally the said Mangalam Ammal is shown as Indigent Person, has been dismissed. 5. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court in so far as the petitioner was concerned to add herself as legal representative, the lower court should have ordered the same for the simple reason that what was sought was recovery of maintenance i.e. the past maintenance arrears and future maintenance and when a decree is passed, this petitioner as legal representatives of the said Mangalam Ammal would be benefitted and also they are entitled to have the benefit of the same. Under the said circumstances, legal representatives of the said Mangalam Ammal should have been added. 6. The Court heard the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. A perusal of the order of the Court below would clearly indicate that no question to add the revision petitioner as legal representative of said Mangalam Ammal would arise, since the right of getting maintenance got extinguished on the death of the said Mangalam Ammal. But, now from the submissions made, it is quite evident that it is not only for future maintenance, but also for past maintenance arrears and as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the decree is passed, the petitioner also would be one of the beneficiary. Under the said circumstances, there cannot be any impediment for the petitioner to prosecute the suit as well as to be added as legal representative. 8. Hence, the order of the lower court is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The lower court is directed to add the revision petitioner as legal representative of the said Mangalam Ammal and allow her to prosecute the matter.