Allowed

G.Thirunavukkarasu (Died) 1.T.Santhi v. Chinnaya Konar (Died) 1. Sundaramoorthy

Madras HC27 Aug 2024CMP/18688/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitions sought condonation of a 304-day delay in setting aside the abatement of a second appeal caused by the death of the sole appellant and impleading his legal representatives. The court condoned the delay, subject to payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 304 days condoned on payment of Rs.1000/- cost to Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority; legal representatives impleaded as appellants 2 to 6.

G.Thirunavukkarasu (Died) 1.T.Santhi Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P. Nos.18688, 18691 & 18692 of 2024 in S.A.No.371 of 2001

¶2

C.M.P.Nos.18688, 18691 & 18692 of 2024

¶3

in S.A. No. 371 of 2001

¶4

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶5

These petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 304 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of sole appellant, and to bring on record the proposed appellants 2 to 6 herein as legal representatives of deceased sole appellant.

¶6

Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners/appellants submitted that pending appeal, sole appellant died on 11.05.2023. He would submit that the petitioner's father/deceased sole appellant had conducted the court proceedings and after his demise, the petitioner came to know about the pendency of this appeal only on receipt of letter on 04.11.2023 from his counsel and it is not due to any willful negligence on his part. However, the delay of 304 days arose and the delay is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he has filed the above petitions.

¶7

Ms.P.T.Ramadevi, learned counsel for respondents appeared and

¶8

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

¶9

C.M.P. Nos.18688, 18691 & 18692 of 2024 in S.A.No.371 of 2001

¶10

raised formal objections for allowing these petitions.

¶11

On considering the facts and circumstances and being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit, all the petitions are allowed on condition that the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs.1000/- payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, Chennai within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The proposed legal representatives of the sole appellant are impleaded as appellants 2 to 6 in the above Second Appeal. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title and post the matter on 06.09.2024.

¶12

27.08.2024

¶13

rpp

¶14

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

¶15

C.M.P. Nos.18688, 18691 & 18692 of 2024 in S.A.No.371 of 2001

¶16

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶17

rpp

¶18

C.M.P.Nos. 18688, 18691 & 18692 of 2024 in S.A. No. 371 of 2001

¶19

27.08.2024

¶20

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

G.Thirunavukkarasu (Died) 1.T.Santhi v. Chinnaya Konar (Died) 1. Sundaramoorthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Thirunavukkarasu (Died) 1.T.Santhi v. Chinnaya Konar (Died) 1. Sundaramoorthy

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

Kuppuswamy Vs Nallasivam

Kuppuswamy Vs Nallasivam

A.Loganathan (Deceased) Vs P.Ravi

Janapriya Vs K.Saravanan

Vedharathinam Vs Arunachalam

M/S Ozone India Vs M/S Auroelectronics