Allowed

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumar Reddy (Died)

Madras HC12 Dec 2022CRP(MD)/679/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court disposed of a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application to implead legal heirs. The High Court found the trial court's assessment of delay unjustified given the date the death was officially intimated. The petition was allowed, and a registry direction to call an explanation from the trial judge was issued.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition is allowed; registry is directed to call for explanation from the trial judge; consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

The State of Tamil Nadu Vs Kumar Reddy (Died) — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated: 12.12.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018 and CMP(MD)No.3024 of 2018

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its District Collector, Madurai.

¶8

2.The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry, Madurai. ... Petitioners

¶9

¶10

Kumar Reddy (died)

¶11

1.Balasundari

¶12

2.Rajalakshmi

¶13

3.Rathika

¶14

4.Pavaniya

¶15

5.Ragubalan ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order passed in IA.No.74 of 2017 in IA.No.533 of 2016 in OS.No.476 of 1/6

¶17

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

¶18

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018

¶19

2007 dated 05.10.2017 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai and allow the revision petition.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Baskaran, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.A.Kannan, Additional Government Pleader For Respondents : Mr.S.Manohar

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This civil revision petition is filed as against the order passed in IA.No.74 of 2017 in IA.No.533 of 2016 in OS.No.476 of 2007 dated 05.10.2017 by the

¶23

Principal Sub Court, Madurai.

¶24

2.The petitioners are the defendants in OS.No.476 of 2007. The said suit was filed by the respondents for the relief of recovery of possession with regard to the suit schedule property. Written statement was also filed by these petitioners on 25.07.2008. Since there was no representation for the revision petitioners before the

¶25

2/6

¶26

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

¶27

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018

¶28

trial Court on 19.12.2012 they were set ex-parte. Thereafter, the civil revision petitioners have filed an interlocutory application in IA.No.533 of 2016 to set aside the ex-parte decree, however with a delay of 431 days. In the meantime the respondent/ plaintiff has filed an application for execution in EP.No.255 of 2013 before the execution court and pending the said execution petition, the plaintiff passed away. The petitioners failed to implead the legalheirs of the respondent/ plaintiff within time and thereafter they filed an application in IA.No.74 of 2017 to implead the legalheirs with a delay of 656 days. Being not satisfied with the reasons for the

¶29

delay of 656 days in impleading the legalheirs of the respondent/ plaintiff, the trial Court dismissed the application filed in IA.No.74 of 2017. Challenging the same, the government has filed this civil revision petition.

¶30

3.Though the respondent / plaintiff died on 01.11.2014, a memo of informing the death of the plaintiff was filed only on 19.10.2016. Subsequently the application in

¶31

3/6

¶32

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

¶33

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018 IA.No.74 of 2017 was filed on 11.11.2016. However, the said application was dismissed that there is a delay of 656 days in filing the application to implead the legalheirs. When the Memo was filed by the respondent/ plaintiff only on 19.10.2016 and the petitioners have filed the application

¶34

for impleading the legalheirs on 11.11.2016 itself, it cannot be stated that there is a delay in filing the said application. This Court is not satisfied with the manner in which the order dated 05.10.20217 in IA.No.74 of 2017 is passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Madurai. Registry is directed to call for explanation from the learned Judicial Officer, who has passed the said order dated 05.10.2017.

¶35

4.In view of the above, this Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

List it along with the explanation on 20.01.2023.

12.12.2022

dsk

4/6

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

¶41

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018

¶42

¶43

The Principal Sub Judge, Madurai.

¶44

5/6

¶45

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

¶46

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018

¶47

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

¶48

dsk

¶49

CRP(MD)No.679 of 2018

¶50

12.12.2022

¶51

6/6

¶52

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

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumar Reddy (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Tamil Nadu v. Kumar Reddy (Died)

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

S.S.Saraswathy Vs a.Arun Kumar

P.Periya Karuppan, Vs Thiruvambalam Pillai

Kuthisiya Rani Vs Riyas Mohamed Ali

Sabiyal Beevi Vs S.M.Shaikh Maideen

Murugan Vs The Inspector of Police

M/s.Ajantha Aluminum Agencies Vs v.Sathappan