Allowed

E.v.Nagarathinam (Died) v. P.Indurani

Madras HC23 Jan 2023CMP(MD)/2504/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three consents to condone delay for substituting legal representatives of a deceased sole appellant in a Second Appeal. The appellants were permitted to request condonation of the delay and to bring legal representatives on record as a condition for proceeding with the suit.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed for condonation of delay and substitution of legal representatives subject to payment of Rs. 3,000 to the Chief Justice Relief Fund.

E.v.Nagarathinam (Died) Vs P.Indurani — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.P(MD) Nos.2504, 2505 and 2507 of 2020

¶2

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

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Third day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Three

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.M.P(MD) Nos.2504, 2505 and 2507 of 2020

¶7

in S.A.No.827 of 2002

¶8

1 E.V.NAGANATHAN (DIED)

¶9

... DECEASED SOLE APPELLANT IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶10

2 LOKAMATHA

¶11

3 JOTHI MUTHU RAMALINGAM

¶12

4 KRISHNAMOORTHY

¶13

... PETITIONERS 2 TO 4/ PROPOSED APPELLANTS 2 TO 4 (LRs OF THE SOLE APPELLANT) IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶14

¶15

1 P.INDURANI

¶16

2 UKKIRA PANDIYAN

¶17

3 N.MUTHURATHINAM 4 NAGAJOTHI

¶18

5 DEIVARANI

¶19

6 MANIKANDAN

¶20

7 VASUKI

¶21

8 N.INDURANI

¶22

9 GANDHI MEENAL

¶23

10 P.PONUCHAMY THEVAR(DIED)

¶24

11 A.SIVAGNANAM

¶25

12 MURUGESAN

¶26

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

¶27

1/4

¶28

C.M.P(MD) Nos.2504, 2505 and 2507 of 2020

13 NATARAJA THEVAR

14 MAYILVASAGAM

15 T.PANDI

16 PONNUSAMY @ UKKIRAPANDI THEVAR

¶33

17 R.KASINATHADURAI

¶34

18 DHANALAKSHMI

¶35

19 POOMALAI

¶36

S/O.PERIYANATHA THEVAR

¶37

20 SATHYA MURTHY

¶38

21 SANKARA IYER

¶39

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶40

22 UTHAMARAMAN

¶41

23 POOMALAI

¶42

D/O.LATE.PONNUSAMY THEVAR

¶43

24 NAGU

¶44

25 VELLAIMMAL ... RESPONDENTS 22 TO 25/ PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 22 TO 25 (LRs OF 10^th RESPONDENT) IN ALL THE PETITIONS

¶45

(RESPONDENTS 12,16,17 AND 19 WERE DELETED AND ITSELF 21^st RESPONDENT STOOD EX-PARTE BEFORE THE APPELLATE COURT, HENCE NOTICE MAY BE GIVEN UP)

¶46

PRAYER IN CMP(MD).2504/2020:

¶47

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 5928 days in filing the petition for set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the sole appellate in the above Second Appeal No.827/2002.

¶48

Prayer in CMP(MD). 2505/ 2020 :

¶49

To set aside the abatment caused due to the death of the sole appellate in the above second appeal No.827/2002 in so far as the sole appellate in concerned.

¶50

Prayer in CMP(MD). 2507/ 2020 :

¶51

To bring on record the petitioners 2 to 4 as legal representative of the deceased E.V.Naganathan the sole appellate and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis rank them as Appellants 2 to 4 in the above second appeal

¶52

2/4

¶53

C.M.P(MD) Nos.2504, 2505 and 2507 of 2020

¶54

No.827/2002.

¶55

PRAYER IN SA.No.827/2002:

¶56

Pleased to set aside the judgement and decree made in A.S.No.154/97 on the file of Additional District Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram dated 22.06.2000 which confirms the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.82/93 on the file of Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram dated 25.03.1996.

¶57

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 M/S.S.NATARAJAN, Advocate for the petitioners in all the Petitions, the court made the following order:-

¶58

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the second appeal filed by the deceased sole appellant was dismissed earlier and a review application was filed by him in Review Application (MD) No.113 of 2011. It is further submitted that the sole appellant died pending review application leaving behind the petitioners 2 to 4 as his legal representatives. The petitioner filed CMP(MD) No.580 of 2005 to accept the cause title in the review application and the same was allowed on 07.09.2011. Thereafter, the review application was allowed and the second appeal is restored to file. Therefore, there is a delay of 5928 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused to the second appeal by the death of the sole appellant.

¶59

As far as the petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased parties are concerned, the Court has to take liberal view while considering the petition to condone the delay in seeking to set aside the abatement, especially when legal representatives were allowed to prosecute review application as stated above.

¶60

Therefore, this Court is inclined to take liberal view and these petitions are allowed on condition that the petitioners making a payment of Rs.3,000/- to the credit of the Chief Justice Relief Fund, payable in Accounts Section of the High Court Registry, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai, on or before 13.02.2023.

¶61

sd/23/01/2023 / TRUE COPY / /01/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶62

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

¶63

3/4

¶64

C.M.P(MD) Nos.2504, 2505 and 2507 of 2020

¶65

CP TO

¶66

1 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE CUM CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶67

2 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, RAMANATHAPURAM.

¶68

COPY TO:

¶69

THE SECTION OFFICER, ACCOUNTS SECTION, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶70

ORDER IN C.M.P(MD) Nos.2504, 2505 and 2507 of 2020 in S.A.No.827 of 2002 Date :23/01/2023

¶71

SA/VR/SAR.4/09.02.2023/4P/4C

¶72

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

¶73

4/4

E.v.Nagarathinam (Died) v. P.Indurani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.v.Nagarathinam (Died) v. P.Indurani

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

Narayanan(Died), Vs Kumara Pillai(Died)

Palupillai, Vs the Thasildar

Sankarammal, Vs Tmt. Lakshmi

E.v.Naganathan (Died) Vs P.Indirani

S.Semmalai Vs All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam

Vembu Ammal Vs Umarani