Allowed

S. Ravikumar (DECEASED)1.VARALAKSHMI v. N. SRINIVASAN(DECEASED)1.G.PRABHAKARAN

Madras HC18 Sept 2024CMP/19686/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed petitions to condone a delay of 3437 days in setting aside abatement caused by the death of the first respondent and to implead surviving legal heirs as respondents, subject to payment of a cost. Legal representatives were impleaded and matter posted.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 3437 days condoned; legal representatives impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 subject to payment of Rs. 2500 cost.

S. Ravikumar (DECEASED)1.VARALAKSHMI Vs N… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P. Nos.19686, 19687 & 19688 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No. 41548 of 2024

¶2

C.M.P.Nos.19686, 19687 & 19688 of 2024

¶3

in S.A.SR.No. 41548 of 2024

¶4

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

¶5

These petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 3437 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of 1^st respondent, and to bring on record the proposed respondents 3 and 4 herein as legal representatives of deceased 1^st respondent.

¶6

Mr.R.Bhagawat Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners/appellants submitted that pending appeal, 1^st respondent died on 18.10.2014. He would submit that one of his legal heir viz., 1^st appellant died on 03.12.2015, the other legal heirs/proposed respondents 3 and 4 are his surviving legal heirs. He would submit that since the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare the cancellation of deed as null and void, they are necessary parties and they are liable to be impleaded in the Second Appeal. Unless the legal heirs are impleaded in the above Second Appeal, the appellants would not get the fruits of the decree. However, the delay of 3437 days arose and the delay is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he has filed the above petitions.

¶7

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

¶8

C.M.P. Nos.19686, 19687 & 19688 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No. 41548 of 2024

¶9

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 on condition that the petitioners shall pay a cost of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as non-refundable deposit to the credit of The Medical Research Foundation (Sankara Nethralaya), No.41/18, College Road, Chennai-6. HDFC Bank Ltd., A/c.No.00821000087815, IFSC Code No. HDFC0000082 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such payment of cost, the proposed legal representatives of the 1^st respondent are impleaded as respondents 3 and 4 in the above Second Appeal. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title and post the matter on 04.10.2024.

¶10

18.09.2024

¶11

rpp

¶12

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

¶13

C.M.P. Nos.19686, 19687 & 19688 of 2024 in S.A.SR.No. 41548 of 2024

¶14

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶15

rpp

¶16

C.M.P.Nos. 19686, 19687 & 19688 of 2024 in

¶17

S.A.SR.No. 41548 of 2024

¶18

18.09.2024

¶19

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

S. Ravikumar (DECEASED)1.VARALAKSHMI v. N. SRINIVASAN(DECEASED)1.G.PRABHAKARAN

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Ravikumar (DECEASED)1.VARALAKSHMI v. N. SRINIVASAN(DECEASED)1.G.PRABHAKARAN

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

Tmt. Velankanni(died) Vs M.Vaitheesan

Rajendran Vs v.Ramalingam @ Dharmalingam (Died), 1.R.Meenammal

Vijaya Vs Sellammal

S. Ravikumar(Deceased), 1.R.VARALAKSHMI Vs N. Srinivasan

Thangamani @ S.M.Palaniammal Vs P.K. Ramasamy

Kokila Vs S.T. Boopathy