Dismissed

K.Vasugi v. Paramasivam

Madras HC8 Mar 2021CMP(MD)/6559/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition seeking to set aside the dismissal of an appeal suit for default against respondents 1 and 7. The court held that since respondents 1 and 7 had died before the filing of the suit and their estate was sufficiently represented, no restoration was necessary, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition to set aside dismissal of appeal for default and restore suit is dismissed.

K.Vasugi Vs Paramasivam — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.6559 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Honble Mrs.Justice PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA and The Honble Mrs.Justice S.KANNAMMAL

¶6

CMP(MD) No.6559 of 2019

¶7

¶8

AS(MD) No.127 of 2014

¶9

K.VASUGI

¶10

... PETITIONER/ APPELLANT

¶11

¶12

1 PARAMASIVAM

¶13

2 USHA

¶14

3 MUTHULAKSHMI

¶15

4 NAGARATHINAM

¶16

5 KARTHIK,

¶17

6 KATHIKEYAN

¶18

7 NARAYANASAMY

¶19

8 PAPPU @ SUNNAMMAL

¶20

9 MEENA

¶21

10 SOMASUNDARI

¶22

11 MUTHUKRISHNAN

¶23

12 SHANMUGASUNDARI

¶24

13 MEENAKUMARI

¶25

14 MADURAMBIGAI

¶26

15 DHANLAKSHMI

¶27

16 MOHANAMBAL

¶28

17 P.MURUGESAN

¶29

18 B.MUTHUKUMAR

¶30

19 B.ANNAPURNANAM,

¶31

20 B.MEENAKUMARI

¶32

21 B.KUTTI

¶33

22 B.ANANTHI

¶34

23 PAPPA

¶35

24 V.BOOMIKUMAR

¶36

25 V.SUBBAIAH

¶37

26 PARASAKTHI

¶38

27 MINOR.DEEPAN RAM,

¶39

28 MINOR.SRI SARANYADEVI (Minor Respondents 27 to 28 represent by their Guardian Mother Parasakthi as 26^th Respondent)

¶40

29 RAMESHBABU

¶41

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

¶42

1/3

¶43

CMP(MD) No.6559 of 2019

30 KANNAMMAL

31 CHIDAMBARAM

32 SURIYAKUMAR

33 GANTHIMATHI

34 VIJAYALAKSHMI ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS (R30 to 34 Remained Ex-parte. Hence Notice may be dispensed with)

¶49

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 order dated 04.07.2018 made in A.S.(MD).No. 127 of 2014 dismissed the appeal suit as against the Respondents 1 and 7 for default and to restore the appeal suit as against the respondents 1 and 7 and thus render justice.

¶50

PRAYER IN AS(MD) No.127 of 2014:

¶51

To set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.18 of 2005 dated 21.03.2014 on the file of the learned Additional District Cum Sessions Judge, Dindigul, and thereby allow the First Appeal.

¶52

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.P.DHANASEKARAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.H.LAKSHMI SHANKAR, Advocate for the Respondents 2 to 6 and 8 to 29, the court made the following order:-

¶53

(Order of the Court was made by PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA,J)

¶54

This Petition is filed to set aside the order made in A.S(MD) No.127 of 2014, in dismissing the Appeal Suit as against the respondents 1 and 7 for default and to restore the Appeal Suit as against the respondents 1 and 7.

¶55

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this court.

¶56

3.It is represented by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 to 6 and 8 to 29 that the first respondent namely, Paramasivam and the 7^th respondent namely, Narayanasamy died even before the appeal suit being filed and their estate is being sufficiently represented.

¶57

4.In view of the above, this Petition stands dismissed.

¶58

sd/-

¶59

08/03/2021

¶60

/ TRUE COPY / / /2021

¶61

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai - 625 023.

¶62

2/3

¶63

CMP(MD) No.6559 of 2019

¶64

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.

¶65

¶66

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CUM SESSIONS JUDGE, DINDIGUL.

¶67

ORDER

¶68

IN CMP(MD) No.6559 of 2019 IN AS(MD) No.127 of 2014 Date :08/03/2021

¶69

vsn MS/PN/SAR-1/11.03.2021/3P.2C

¶70

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

¶71

3/3

K.Vasugi v. Paramasivam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vasugi v. Paramasivam

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs S.Selvi

R.Palanisamy, S/O.Rama Gounder Vs the Regional Transport Officer

D.Sabarinath Vs M.Soundararajan

M/S.Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co.Ltd, Vs Mani Mekala

V.Niraja Vs M.Rajarajan

The Executive Officer Vs M/S. Raju Spinning Mills