Allowed

T.S.Jayaprakash v. v.P.Sakthivel

Madras HC16 Sept 2022CMP/796/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed C.M.P. petitions seeking to condone a 408-day delay in impleading legal representatives of a deceased first petitioner. The court found the delay was not willful and set aside the abatement to allow the new representatives to be added as the fifth petitioner in the pending Civil Revision Petition regarding rent recovery and possession.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; delay condoned; abatement set aside; proposed legal representatives impleaded as 5th petitioner; cause title directed to be amended.

T.S.Jayaprakash Vs v.P.Sakthivel — Property and Title | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.M.P. Nos. 796,797 & 798 of 2011 in C.R.P. No. 1667 of 2003

¶2

C.M.P.Nos.796,797 & 798 of 2011

¶3

¶4

C.R.P. No. 1667 of 2003

¶5

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶6

These petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 408 days in filing the petition to implead the legal representatives of deceased 1^st petitioner, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of 1^st petitioner, and to bring on record the proposed petitioner herein as legal representatives of deceased 1^st petitioner.

¶7

Mr.V.Murali, learned counsel for petitioners herein submitted that pending Civil Revision Petition, 1^st petitioner died on 08.01.2010. He would submit that the petitioner is not aware of above revision pending before this court and only recently, he came to know about the same. Thereafter, after ascertaining the particulars of the case, he has filed this petition to bring on him on record. However, the delay of 408 days arose and the delay is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he has filed the above petitions.

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1\3

¶9

C.M.P. Nos. 796,797 & 798 of 2011 in C.R.P. No. 1667 of 2003

¶10

Mr. K.P.Gopalakrishnan, learned counsel for contesting

¶11

respondents/plaintiffs appeared and raised objection stating that the reason for the delay has not been properly explained. However, due to pendency of the proceedings, he needs some stay order. He would also submit that the Civil Revision Petition is pending from the year of 2003, now the petitioner had filed the above petition to implead legal heir of deceased V.P.Sakthivel, 1^st petitioner and the impugned claim in the original suit is for recovery of possession as well as claiming arrears of rent from tenants. So, he wants to settle the issue as early as possible on merits.

¶12

Considering his objections as well as the reasons assigned in the application and on considering the pendency of proceedings between the parties, this Court is inclined to allow the above petitions. Accordingly, the proposed legal representatives of the 1^st petitioner is impleaded as 5^th petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶13

16.09.2022

¶14

rpp

¶15

Note :- The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title and post the matter on 11.10.2022.

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2\3

¶17

C.M.P. Nos. 796,797 & 798 of 2011 in C.R.P. No. 1667 of 2003

¶18

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶19

rpp

¶20

C.M.P.Nos. 796,797 & 798 of 2011 in C.R.P. No. 1667 of 2003

¶21

16.09.2022

¶22

(5/8)

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3\3

T.S.Jayaprakash v. v.P.Sakthivel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Jayaprakash v. v.P.Sakthivel

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

R.Lakshminarayanan Vs Kathirvel

Kumar Vs Rajamani (Deceased)

M/S Avanthi Agences Vs Smt.Palaniammal

T.S.Jayaprakash Vs v.P.Sakthivel (Died)

Sakarapani Vs M.Sirajuddin Syed

Lakshmi Vs v.M.Murugan@Murugesan