Allowed¶28

Dhansekaran v. J Thonitiram

Madras HC2 Jan 2025CMP/15405/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

condonation of delay 327 days; set aside abatement; death of 2nd respondent on 27.04.2021 during pendency of appeal; impleadment of legal representatives (sons) as respondents 5 and 6; amendment of cause title by Registry; notice returnable 18.02.2025; Second Appeal S.A.No.1189 of 2005; Madras High Court; T.V. Thamilselvi; appellants' counsel R. Vasudevan; respondents' counsel Bommuraj (R1), R. Siddharth Govt. Advocate (R3), P.T. Ramadevi (R4); R2 died; no appearance by RR5 & RR6.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 327 days condoned; abatement caused by the death of the 2nd respondent set aside; proposed legal representatives (sons of the deceased 2nd respondent) impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 in S.A.No.1189 of 2005; Registry directed to amend the cause title; notice to newly added respondents returnable by 18.02.2025. ¶28

Dhansekaran Vs J Thonitiram — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P. Nos.15405, 15415 & 15406 of 2023 in S.A.No.1189 of 2005

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-01-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMP NO. 15405 of 2023, CMP NO. 15415 OF 2023 & CMP NO. 15406 OF 2023

¶7

¶8

SA NO. 1189 OF 2005

DHANSEKARAN

Appellant(s)

J Thonitiram and 5 Others

¶13

Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant(s):

¶15

Mr. R.VASUDEVAN

¶16

For Respondent(s):

¶17

Mr. BOMMURAJ FOR R1

¶18

R2 – DIED

¶19

Mr.R.SIDDHARTH GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R3

¶20

Ms.P.T.RAMADEVI FOR R4

¶21

NO APPEARANCE – RR5 & RR6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1\4

¶23

C.M.P. Nos.15405, 15415 & 15406 of 2023 in S.A.No.1189 of 2005

¶24

ORDER

¶25

These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 327 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of 2^nd respondent, and to bring on record the proposed respondents 5 and 6 herein as legal representatives of deceased 2^nd respondent.

¶26

Mr.R.Vasudevan, learned counsel for petitioners/appellants submitted that pending appeal, 2^nd respondent died on 27.04.2021. He would submit that the proposed respondents 5 and 6 are her sons. He would submit that the petitioner came to know about her death belatedly and it is not due to any willful negligence on his part. However, the delay of 327 days arose and the delay is neither willful nor wanton. Hence, he has filed the above petitions.

¶27

The learned counsel for respondents 1,3 and 4 to 6 appeared and raised formal objections in allowing these petitions.

¶28

On considering the facts and circumstances and being satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit, all the petitions are allowed. The proposed legal representatives of the 2^nd respondent are impleaded as respondents 5 and 6 in the above Second Appeal. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title.

¶29