Allowed

Maheswari v. Sivanesapandian

Madras HC14 Dec 2021CMP(MD)/4083/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed three CMP petitions. The petitions sought condonation of delay to set aside abatement due to the death of a respondent and the impleadment of legal heirs. The court granted the petitions subject to the payment of a fee to the Advocate Clerk's Welfare Association.

What did the court decide?

The petitions to condone delay for setting aside abatement and impleading legal heirs are allowed provided a fee of Rs. 2,000 is paid.

Maheswari Vs Sivanesapandian — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶4

Tuesday, the Fourteenth day of December Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice S.ANANTHI

¶7

CMP(MD) No.4083 to 4085 of 2020 IN AS(MD) No.24 of 2017

¶8

1 MAHESWARI

¶9

2 RAMAR

¶10

3 LAKSHMANAN

¶11

4 VIJAYA

¶12

5 RAFIQUE

¶13

6 MOHAMADHA BEGAM ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶14

¶15

1 SIVANESAPANDIAN

¶16

2 SRIRAMKUMAR

¶17

3 SARAVANA KUMAR,

¶18

4 PRIAMUGI BOURNA

¶19

5 ALAGARSAMY (DIED)

¶20

6 GUNESEKARAN

¶21

7 PADMA

¶22

8 SARVESWARAN ...RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8/ RESPONDENTS 1 TO 8 IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶23

9 DHANALAKSHMI

¶24

10 RUBAN KUMAR

¶25

11 SANTHOSH KUMAR ... RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11/PROPOSED

¶26

RESPONDENTS 9 TO 11 IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶27

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4083/ 2020 :

¶28

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1350 days in filing the application to set aside the abatement caused in respect of the decreased 5th Respondent in A.S(MD)No. 24 of 2017 on the file of this Hon`ble Court.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶30

¶31

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4084/ 2020 :

¶32

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to set aside the abatement cased in respect of the deceased 5th Respondent in A.S(MD) No. 24 of 2017 on the file of this Hon`ble Court .

¶33

Prayer in CMP(MD). 4085/ 2020 :

¶34

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to bring on record the Respondents 9 to 11 herein as the legal heirs of the deceased 5th Respondent and implead them as Respondents 9 to 11 in A.S(MD)No. 24 of 2017 on the file of this Hon`ble Court.

¶35

PRAYER IN AS(MD) No.24 of 2017:

¶36

To set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2015 made in O.S.No.77 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District Court, Dindigul and dismissed the suit with cost by allowing the appeal.

¶37

ORDER :These petitions coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petitions and the affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.A.ARUMUGAM, Advocate for M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES, for the petitioner in all the petitions and of M/S.M.ANBARASI, Advocate on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 4 in all the petitions, the court made the following order:-

¶38

C.M.P(MD) No.4083 of 2020 is filed to condone the delay of 1350 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the fifth respondent in A.S.(MD)No.24 of 2017.

¶39

2.C.M.P(MD)No.4084 of 2020 is filed to set-aside the abatement caused due to the death of the deceased fifth respondent.

¶40

3.C.M.P(MD)No.4085 of 2020 is filed to bring on record the respondent Nos.9 to 11 herein as legal heirs of the deceased fifth respondent and rank them as respondent Nos.9 to 11 in A.S.(MD).No.24 of 2017.

¶41

4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶42

5.For the reasons assigned in the accompanying affidavits filed in support of these Petitions and on being satisfied with the same, these Petitions are ordered on condition that the petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thousand Only) to the credit of Madras High Court Madurai Bench, Advocate Clerk's Welfare Association, Madurai-625 023 (Indian Bank

¶43

¶44

Saving Account No.496039124, IFSC Code: IDIB000H040), on or before 06.01.2022.

¶45

6.Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the cause-title of the appeal papers and post the main appeal on 07.01.2022.

¶46

/ TRUE COPY /

¶47

/ /2021

¶48

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶49

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶50

¶51

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DINDIGUL.

¶52

COPY TO

¶53

THE OFFICER INCHARGE

¶54

ADVOCATE CLERK'S WELFARE ASSOCIATION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI-625 023

¶55

ORDER

¶56

¶57

CMP(MD) No.4083 to 4085 of 2020 IN

¶58

AS(MD) No.24 of 2017 Date :14/12/2021

¶59

VB/VR/SAR-I/30.12.2021/3P/3C

¶60

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Maheswari v. Sivanesapandian

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maheswari v. Sivanesapandian

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

Rathinabal Vs T.Arunachalam

Esakkimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police

The Managing Director, Vs a.Dharmalingam

The Branch Manager Vs M.Anand

The New India Assurance Vs Tmt.Rathinam

V.Nandhini Vs M/S.Nilla Sea Foods Pvt.Ltd.