Allowed

Rm. Sathappan, v. 1. N. Dharmambal Aatchi (Died), 2. N. Muthaiah

Madras HC18 Aug 2023CMP(MD)/8970/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil miscellaneous petition, the Madurai Bench condoned a delay of 314 days in restoring an appeal dismissed for non-appearing parties, directing the appellant to pay Rs.2000 costs to objecting legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 314 days delay in restoring SA(MD) No.256 of 2019, subject to payment of Rs.2000 costs to respondents 8-11 within two weeks.

Rm. Sathappan, Vs 1. N. Dharmambal Aatchi… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.8970 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶4

Friday, the Eighteenth day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Three

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C. KUMARAPPAN

¶7

CMP(MD) No.8970 of 2023 in SA(MD) No.256 of 2019

¶8

RM.SATHAPPAN

¶9

... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶10

¶11

1 N.DHARMAMBAL AATCHI (DIED)

2 N. MUTHAIAH

3 N. RAVI,

4 N. ANNAMALAI,

N. VISHALATCHI (DIED)

¶16

5 N. NIRMALA,

¶17

6 S. MUTHU MOHAMED (DIED)

¶18

7 G. KALAICHELVAN ... RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7

¶19

8 BARAKATHUNNISA,

¶20

9 RABIK MOHAMED,

¶21

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

¶22

1/3

¶23

CMP(MD) No.8970 of 2023

¶24

10 ANWAR BANU,

¶25

11 SYED MOHAMED,

¶26

... RESPONDENTS 8 TO 11/ PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 8 TO 11 LEGAL HEIRS OF DECEASE 6TH RESPONDENT

¶27

Civil Miscellaneous 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 314 days in filing the application to restore the S.A.(MD). No. 256 of 2019, which is dismissed for non-taking of steps in respect of 6th respondent by order dated 04.08.2022.

¶28

PRAYER IN SA(MD).256/2019 :

¶29

To set aside the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.59 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, dated 21.12.2017 confirming in judgment and decree made in O.S.No.391 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul dated 20.10.2011 and thereby allow the second appeal.

¶30

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.VR.SHANMUGANATHAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.B.PRAHALAD RAVI, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and MR.A.ARUMUGAM, Advocate on behalf of the 5^th Respondent and MR.K.C.RAMALINGAM, Advocate on behalf of the Respondent Nos.8 to 11, the court made the following order:-

¶31

The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 8 to 11 has strongly objected in allowing this petition, and expressing the hardship faced by them.

¶32

The learned counsel appearing for the other respondents has no serious objection in allowing this petition.

¶33

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on either

¶34

side and also being satisfied with the averments in the affidavit, this Court is inclined https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

2/3

¶36

CMP(MD) No.8970 of 2023

¶37

to allow this petition. However, considering the hardship faced by the respondents 8 to 11, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the respondents 8 to 11 within a period of two weeks from today. Failing which, this application will be dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

¶38

sd/18/08/2023 / TRUE COPY / /08/2023

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

1 THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, DINDIGUL. 2 THE PRINCIPAL SUBORDINATE JUDGE, DINDIGUL.

¶42

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.8970 of 2023 in SA(MD) No.256 of 2019 Date :18/08/2023

¶43

RS/BUC/SAR-(22.08.2023) 3P 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶44

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

¶45

3/3

Rm. Sathappan, v. 1. N. Dharmambal Aatchi (Died), 2. N. Muthaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rm. Sathappan, v. 1. N. Dharmambal Aatchi (Died), 2. N. Muthaiah

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.Selvi, Vs Subbaiah @ Vattisubbaiah

Ambi Reddy, Vs Rengasamy

Ithikathu Muslim Valibar Vs Tamilnadu Wakf Board through

A. Muhaideen Abdul Khadar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

R.Durairaj Vs v.Subburaman (Died)

S.Vargheese,S/O.Singarayan Vs M.Subromanian, W/O.Velayudhan