Allowed

Venkatachalam (Deceased) v. Sakunthala

Madras HC4 Apr 2017CMP/3049/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court condoned delays and allowed petitions filed to set aside abatement caused by the death of appellants in Second Appeals (SA.293 and 294 of 2011). The court directed bringing certain parties on record as legal representatives or proposed appellants and allowed the petitions upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed on payment of Rs. 500 costs; delay condoned; parties brought on record as successors.

Venkatachalam (Deceased) Vs Sakunthala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Fourth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT

¶4

THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

CMP No.3049 TO 3057 of 2017 IN SA.293 AND 294 OF 2011

¶6

VENKATACHALAM (DECEASED)

¶7

PERUMAL (DECEASED) 1. MUNIAMMAL, [ PETITIONERS CMP No.3049 TO 3054] 2 ALAMELU 3 AMUDHA 4 VIJAYAN 5 MALLIGA 6 KAMARAJ 7 CHIDAMBARAM 8 VASANTHA [ PETITIONERS CMP No.3055 TO 3057] 9 P.SIVAJI 10.AMMU 11. P.DAYALAN 12. ARUMUGAM 13. NARMATHA 14. MANIKANDAN Vs RANGASAMY REDDY (DIED) 1 SAKUNTHALA [1ST RESPONDENT CMP No.3049 TO 3051] [3ST RESPONDENT CMP No.3052 TO 3057] 2 VALARMATHI AMMAL [2ND RESPONDENT CMP No.3049 TO 3051]

¶8

3 VIJAYA AMMAL [3RD	RESPONDENT CMP No.3049 TO 3051]
[5TH	RESPONDENT CMP No.3052 TO 3057]

¶9

4	ANNIAMMAL	[4TH RESPONDENT CMP No.3049 TO 3051] [6TH RESPONDENT CMP No.3052 TO 3057]
5	CHANDRAN	[1ST RESPONDENT CMP No.3052 TO 3057]
6	SELVARAJ	[2ND RESPONDENT CMP No.3052 TO 3057]
7	SULLI	[4TH RESPONDENT CMP No.3052 TO 3057]

¶10

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to

¶11

(1)To condone the delay of 174 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1st appellant and pass such other suitable orders and thus render justice.(IN CMP No.3049 of 2017 IN SA.293 OF 2011)

¶12

(2)To set aside the abatement caused due to the death of 1st appellant and pass such other suitable Orders and thus render justice(IN CMP No.3050 of 2017 IN SA.293 OF 2011)

¶13

(3)To bring on record the 3rd party petitioners / proposed appellants 2 to 7 herein viz., 1. Alamelu, D/o. Venkatachalam, 2. Amudha, D/o. Venkatachalam, 3. Vijayan, S/o. Venkatachalam, 4. Malliga, W/o. Mani, 5. Kamaraj, S/o. mani, 6. Chidambaram, S/o. Mani all are res at Peria Thagarakuppam Vill, Hamlet of Sengadu Vill & Po, Via Ammoor, Walajah Tk, Vellore Dt as the Legal representative of the 1st appellant and rank them as appellants 2 to 7 in the above S.A. No. 293/2011(IN CMP No.3051 of 2017 IN SA.293 OF 2011)

¶14

(4)To condone the delay of 54 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1st appellant.(IN CMP No.3052 of 2017 IN SA.294 OF 2011)

¶15

(5)To set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1st appellant and pass such other suitable orders and thus render justice.(IN CMP No.3053 of 2017 IN SA.294 OF 2011)

¶16

(6)To Bring of record the proposed petitioners 1 to 7 herein viz, 1.Muniammal,w/o. venkatachalam, 2.Alamelu, D/o. Venkatachalam, 3.Amudha, d/o. venkatachalam, 4.vijayan,s/o. Venkatachalam, 5.Malliga,w/o. Mani,6.Kamaraj, s/o. Mani, 7.Chidambaram,s/o. mani 1 to 7 res at, o\Periya thagarakuppam villae, hamlet os sengadu village &post, via, Ammor ,Walajah tk, Vellore dist. as the appellants in the above SA.No.294/2011 and pass such other suitable

¶17

orders and thus render justice.(IN CMP No.3054 of 2017 IN SA.294 OF 2011)

¶18

(7)To condone the delay of 214 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd appellant (IN CMP No.3055 of 2017 IN SA.294 OF 2011)

¶19

(8)To set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd appellant(IN CMP No.3056 of 2017 IN SA.294 OF 2011)

¶20

(9)To condone the delay of 174 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1st appellant and pass such other suitable orders and thus render justice(IN CMP No.3057 of 2017 IN SA.294 OF 2011)respectively

¶21

Order : These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. K.G. SENTHILKUMAR, Advocate for the petitioners in each of the petitions and of MR.K.THANGAVELU FOR R1 TO R4 IN CMP No.3049 TO 3051 AND R3 TO R6 IN CMP No.3052 TO 3057 on behalf of the Respondents AND R1 AND R2 respondent not appearing either in person or by on advocate IN CMP No.3052 TO 3057 the court made the following order:-

¶22

Taking note of the averments made in the affidavits and counter affidavits, and for the reasons stated in the affidavits and on being satisfied with the reasons stated the render and as the petitions cannot be thrown out on technical grounds, this court is inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed on payment of costs of Rs.500/- each in CMP No.3049 of 2017, CMP No.3052 of 2017 and CMP No.3055 of 2017 on or before 18.04.2017 to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, High Court Buildings, Chennai.

¶23

Post SAs on 18.04.2017.

-sd/-

04/04/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar ( Statistics / C.S. ) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶28

¶29

1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF COURT/ JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, WALAJAH

¶30

2 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, RANIPET VELLORE

¶31

3 THE SECRETARY HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICE AUTHORITY, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT, MADRAS-104

¶32

4 THE SECTION OFFICER, LOK ADALAT SECTION, HIGH COURT, MADRAS-104.

¶33

C.C. to M/S. K.G. SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶34

The Government Advocate, High Court, Madras - 104.

¶35

Order

¶36

¶37

CMP No.3049 TO 3057 of 2017 IN SA.293 AND 294 OF 2011

¶38

Date :04/04/2017

¶39

From 26.2.2001 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the Interim Orders in this format T.R (06/04/2017)

Venkatachalam (Deceased) v. Sakunthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachalam (Deceased) v. Sakunthala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Ramadoss Vs R.Balasubramaniya Gounder

K.v.Subramanian Vs K.Vijaya

M/S Sowmia Finance Rep by Its Vs M.Sivanandam

Swamidurai Vs the City Union Bank Ltd.

M/S.Asrani Tubes Private Ltd., Vs Tamil Nadu Water Supply and

Munivenkatappa(Deceased) Vs Yosodamma