Allowed

K.P.Elumalai (Deceased)1. G.Kannammal v. P.Jayaraman

Madras HC2 Dec 2024CMP/24732/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition to condone 55 days' delay in filing an appeal against a Single Judge's order dismissing petitioners' impleadment application. Court accepted the reasons despite respondent's objection and condoned the delay on payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 55 days condoned on payment of Rs.5,000/- costs to R14's counsel within two weeks; appeal to be numbered and posted for admission.

K.P.Elumalai (Deceased)1. G.Kannammal Vs P.Jayaraman — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023 IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 02.12.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023

¶7

IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶8

K.P.Elumalai (deceased)

¶9

1.G.Kannamal

¶10

2.Manga

¶11

3.Vidhya

¶12

4.Magesh

¶13

.. Petitioner

¶14

Vs.

¶15

1.P.Jayaraman

¶16

2.J.Anbarasu

¶17

3.J.Deenadayalan

¶18

4.J.Balanchandran

¶19

5.S.Pathipooranammal

¶20

6.Kullayi @ Pushpa

¶21

7.A.VenkatRao

¶22

8.A.Alamelu

¶23

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

¶24

1/6

¶25

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023 IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

9.Vimala

10.Neeraja

11.Nandini 12.Naveen

13.AL.Alagappan

14.N.Sahul Hameed .. Respondents

¶31

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Original Side Rules r/w Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the above appeal.

¶32

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Radha Krishnan For RR 1 to 4, : No appearance 6, 8 to 13 For RR5 & 7 : Died For R14 : Mr.P.V.Murlidhar

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(Made by S.S.SUNDAR, J.)

¶35

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the above appeal preferred against the order dated 28.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in A.No.505 of 2015 in C.S.No.502 of 2008.

¶36

The above appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single

¶37

Judge dismissing the application to implead the petitioners as party to the proceedings in C.S.No.502 of 2008.

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶39

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023 IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶40

It is seen that the petitioners have not taken steps to implead the legal

¶41

heirs of the deceased respondents 5 and 7. As regards some of the respondents, the petitioners have filed affidavit of proof to show that notice has been served by paper publication.

¶42

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though respondents 5 and 7 are dead, their legal heirs were not impleaded in the suit and therefore, he need not implead them as parties. The learned counsel further submitted that notice is not necessary, as respondents 5 and 7 remained ex parte . Having regard to the limited scope of the appeal, this Court proceed to hear this application on merits.

¶43

Though the petitioners have given reasons for the delay, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent/R14 submitted that the explanation cannot be accepted. In the affidavit, the 4^th petitioner has stated that due to his mother's ill health and treatment, he was unable to file the appeal papers in time.

¶44

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

¶45

3/6

¶46

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023 IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶47

Though the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the reasons cannot be accepted, this Court cannot discard the reasons, especially, the delay is only 55 days. This delay could have been avoided by showing due diligence by the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is inclined to allow this petition, on terms.

¶48

Accordingly, this petition is ordered and the delay is condoned on condition that the petitioner pays a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the learned counsel appearing for the 14^th respondent, either in cash or by demand draft, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶49

Upon filing a memo by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Registry is directed to number the original side appeal, if the papers are otherwise in order and post the same 'for admission'.

¶50

gya

¶51

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

¶52

4/6

¶53

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023 IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶55

C.M.P.No.24732 of 2023 IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶56

S.S.SUNDAR, J. AND P.DHANABAL, J.

¶57

gya

¶58

C.M.P.Nos.24732 of 2023

¶59

IN O.S.A.SR.No.130559 of 2023

¶60

02.12.2024

¶61

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

¶62

6/6

K.P.Elumalai (Deceased)1. G.Kannammal v. P.Jayaraman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Elumalai (Deceased)1. G.Kannammal v. P.Jayaraman

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

Pradeep Ranganathan(Since Deceased),1.Cheryl Ranganathan Vs M/S.Industrial Venture Captial Limited

Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited Vs Debt Recovery Tribunal-I

Central Board of Trustees Vs the Deputy Registrar

Manjunath Vs B.Anjappa

M/s. Shambhunath and Bros., Vs Jai Rajendra Impex Pvt. Ltd.

V. Selvaraj Alias v. Kakkanan Vs M. Anand Kumar