Allowed

Lingusamy v. Deivathal

Madras HC16 Dec 2024CMP/22988/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order allowing condonation of delay to bring legal representatives of deceased third and fourth respondents on record in Second Appeal No. 753 of 2017, setting aside abatement, and remitting for final hearing. Counsel for first respondent raised no objection.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; registry to amend Second Appeal No. 753 of 2017 and list for final hearing after four weeks.

Lingusamy Vs Deivathal — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP. 22988, 23866 of 2024

¶2

CMP NO. 22988 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-12-2024

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA

¶5

CMP Nos. 22988, 23866, 23868, 23864, 22994 & 22997 of 2024 in S.A.No.753 of 2017

¶6

LINGUSAMY S/O PALANISAMY, 2/105, RASA GOUNDEN PALAYAM, KALIVELAMPTTI POST, PALLADAM TALUK, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT & 3 ors.

¶7

APPELLANT(S)

¶8

¶9

DEIVATHAL D/O KALIAPPA GOUNDER, W/O LATE SENNIAPPAN, NO.2/90, RASA GOUNDENPALAYAM, KALIVELMPATTI POST, PALLADAM TALUK & 8 ors.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)

¶11

in all C.MPS For Appellant(s):

¶12

Mr.N.Umapathi

¶13

For Respondent(s): Mr.K.Govi Ganesan for R1 No appearance for R2

¶14

COMMON ORDER

¶15

These petitions are filed (i) to condone the delay of 640 days in

¶16

filing the petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent (ii) to set-aside the order of abatement caused 1/2

¶17

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

¶18

CMP. 22988, 23866 of 2024

¶19

due to the death of the fourth respondent and (iii) to bring on record the respondents 7 to 9 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased fourth respondent herein (iv) to condone the delay of 141 days in filing the petition to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent (ii) to set-aside the order of abatement caused due to the death of the third respondent and (iii) to bring on record the respondents 3 to 6 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent herein in S.A. No.753 of 2017, respectively.

¶20

2.Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, learned counsel for the first respondent did

¶21

not raise any serious objection and this Court is satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of these petitions. Hence, these petitions are allowed.

¶22

3.The Registry is directed to carryout necessary amendments in the Second Appeal No.753 of 2017 and list the matter for final hearing after four weeks.

16-12-2024

vum

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

¶27

2/2

¶28

CMP. 22988, 23866 of 2024

¶29

1.DEIVATHAL

¶30

D/O KALIAPPA GOUNDER, W/O LATE SENNIAPPAN, NO.2/90, RASA GOUNDENPALAYAM, KALIVELMPATTI POST, PALLADAM TALUK

¶31

2. BALAMANI

¶32

D/O PALANISAMY W/O RASAN, 3/2, PILLAIYAR KOVIL STREET, V.AYYAMPALAYAM, SAMALAPURAM POST, PALLADAM TALUK, R.SUBBATHAL (DIED) PALANATHAL (DIED)

¶33

3.RAMASAMY

¶34

S/O MURUGASAMY, D.NO.77/1, SAMIGOUNDAPALAYAM, CHEMMIPALAYAM, K.N.PURAM POST, PALLADAM, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT

¶35

4.MUTHUSAMY

¶36

S/O RAMASAMY, D.NO.177F/1, SAMIGOUNDAPALAYAM, CHEMMIPALAYAM, K.N.PURAM POST, PALLADAM, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT

¶37

5.SELVARAJ

¶38

S/O RAMASAMY, D.NO.864, 865, VALARMATHI SERVICE STATION BACKSIDE, NEAR E.B.OFFICE, PALLADAM, TIRUPPUR

¶39

6.BABU @ GANAPATHI

¶40

S/O RAMASAMY, D.NO.175/1, SAMIGOUNDAPALAYAM, CHEMMIPALAYAM K.N.PURAM POST, PALLADAM, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT

¶41

7.KANTHASAMY

¶42

S/O LATE MARAQPPA GOUNDER, 218, KUTTAIKADU, RASAKGONDAMPALAYAM, MANICKAPURAM, KALIVELAMPATTI POST, PALLADAM TALUK, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT

¶43

8.LAKSHMI

¶44

W/O LATE THANGAVELU, 202/2 RASAKGONDAMPALAYAM, MANICKAPURAM KALIVELAMAPTTI POST, PALLADAM TALUK, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT,

¶45

9.RAMATHAL

¶46

W/O MURUGASAMY, 30, OTTANTHOPPU, KALLAMPALAYAM,

¶47

3/2

¶48

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

¶49

CMP. 22988, 23866 of 2024

¶50

NARANAPURAM POST, PALLADAM TALUK, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT

¶51

(1/3)

¶52

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

¶53

4/2

Lingusamy v. Deivathal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lingusamy v. Deivathal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Poorani@Damayanthi Vs Vadivelu

D. Purushothaman Vs D. Kuppabai

G.Settu, Vs G.Krishnamoorthy

Minor Pavithran Vs Vijayalakshmi

K. Veerabadran Vs K. Venugopal

K.Krishnakumar Vs D.Nagamallappa