Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

C. Ponnusamy Vs M. Ramasamy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
C. Ponnusamy Vs M. RamasamyC. Ponnusamy v. M. Ramasamy

Partly allowed¶23

C. Ponnusamy v. M. Ramasamy

Madras HC9 Dec 2025CMP/16046/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court | CMP No. 16046 of 2023 in SA No. 1685 of 2008 | Judge: V. Lakshminarayanan | Decision date: 09-12-2025 | Filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a 4722-day delay in setting aside abatement of the second appeal caused by the death of the sixth respondent Subbaraya Gounder | Legal heirs Rathinam (R9) and Annakodi (R11) served and non-opposing; notices for R10 (S.Thangamuthu) and R12 (Sivakami) returned 'deceased' | Doctrine of substantive representation invoked — one served legal heir treated as representing the estate | Application ordered only as regards respondents 9 and 11 (partial grant) | Registry instructed to amend S.A.No.1685 of 2008 | No precedents cited; no monetary quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of the 4722-day delay and setting aside of the abatement ordered, but limited to respondents 9 (Rathinam) and 11 (Annakodi); Registry directed to carry out the necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

Why is it important?

In an application to bring legal representatives on record, once even one legal heir is served, the Court may treat the served heir as representing the estate, applying the doctrine of substantive representation. ¶21

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Condonation of the 4722-day delay and setting aside of the abatement ordered, but limited to respondents 9 (Rathinam) and 11 (Annakodi); Registry directed to carry out the necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 4722 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sixth respondent Subbaraya Gounder in S.A.No.1685 of 2008 should be condoned. +1 more

Court's answer

The condonation application is ordered only insofar as respondents 9 and 11 are concerned — the legal heirs actually served, who neither entered appearance through counsel nor offered opposition; the effect of the order is accordingly confined to them.

Ratio / Principle

In an application to bring legal representatives on record, once even one legal heir is served, the Court may treat the served heir as representing the estate, applying the doctrine of substantive representation.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Limitation Act, S.5 — Condonation of delay of 4,722 days in filing a petition to set aside the abatement of S.A.No.1685 of 2008 caused by the death of its sixth respondent, Subbaraya Gounder — Notices served on the legal heirs recorded as respondents 9 (Rathinam) and 11 (Annakodi); notices to respondents 10 and 12 returned marked 'deceased' — The served heirs neither entered appearance through counsel nor opposed — Court applies the doctrine of substantive representation: in an application to bring legal representatives on record, service on even one legal heir lets the Court treat that heir as representing the estate — Application therefore ordered only insofar as respondents 9 and 11 — Registry directed to carry out the necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008. (Judgment of V. Lakshminarayanan J., High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 09-12-2025.)

A

CMP No. 16046 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

CMP No. 16046 of 2023 IN SA NO. 1685 OF 2008

C. Ponnusamy Died

Appellant(s)

Vs

M. Ramasamy S/o. Muthusamy, Thandankadu, Moolakarai Village, Erode District

Respondent(s)

Prayer : Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 4722 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 6^th respondent Subbaraya Gounder in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

For Appellant(s): Mr.Ramanan for Mr.N. Manoharan For Respondent(s): Cmp.16046, 16048 And 16050/2023 In Sa.1685 /2008 ( Lrs. Of R6) Notice Sent To Rr 9 To 12 Service Awaited Reg Rr9 To12 Pvt.Notice (cmp.16046,16048,16050/2023 Insa.1685/2008 (lrs Of R6) ---R-9 RATHINAM D/o. Late Subbraya Gounder, 9 Koorapalayam, Pchandampalayam Post, Erode Dist R-11 ANNAKODI W/o. Late Loganathan, 9 Koorapalayam, Pchandampalayam Post, Erode Dist R10and R12 - Died

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

CMP No. 16046 of 2023

ORDER

This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 4722 days in filing

the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 6^th respondent Subbaraya Gounder in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

2.Respondents 9 and 11 have been served. Insofar as the respondents 10

& 12 are concerned, it has been returned as ‘deceased’.

3.In an application filed to bring on record the legal representative, even if one of the legal heirs is served, this Court can treat them as representing the estate, applying the doctrine of substantive representation.

4.Respondents 9 & 11 have not entered appearance through counsel nor are they opposing.

5.Hence, this application is ordered only insofar as the respondents 9 & 11 are concerned.

09-12-2025 (13/22)

krk

NOTE : Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in S.A.No.1685 of 2008.

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

CMP No. 16046 of 2023

To

1.M. Ramasamy

S/o. Muthusamy, Thandankadu, Moolakarai Village, Erode District

2.Nallasamy

S/o. Chinnappa Gounder, Kambar Street, Veerappanchatram, Erode-4

3.Rajendran

S/o. Chinnappa Gounder, Kambar Street, Veerappanchatram, Erode-4

4.Rangasamy (died)

5.Chinnasamy

S/o. Chinnamalai Gounder, Koorapalayam, Pichandampalayam Post, Erode District

6.Subbaraya Gounder (died)

7.R Ramasamy

S/o. Rasa Gounder, Koorapalalyam, Pichandampalayam Post, Erode Taluk and Dist

8.S Ramasamy (died)

9.Rathinam

D/o. Late Subbraya Gounder, 9 Koorapalayam, Pchandampalayam Post, Erode Dist

10.S.Thangamuthu

S/o. Late Subbaraya Gounder, 9 Koorapalayam, Pchandampalayam Post, Erode Dist

11.Annakodi

W/o. late Loganathan, 9 Koorapalayam, Pchandampalayam Post, Erode Dist

12.Sivakami

D/o. Late Loganathan, 9 Koorapalayam, Pchandampalayam Post, Erode Dist

13.S. Prabavathi,

D/o. Late S. Ramasamy, W/o. Arunachalam, 35, Koorapalayam, Pichandampalayam Post, Erode Taluk, Erode District

14.S Bharathi

S/o. Late S. Ramasamy, 35, Koorapalayam, Pichandampalayam Post, Erode Taluk, Erode District

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

CMP No. 16046 of 2023

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN J.

krk

CMP No. 16046 of 2023 IN SA NO. 1685 OF 2008

09-12-2025 (13/22)

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

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 4722 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sixth respondent Subbaraya Gounder in S.A.No.1685 of 2008 should be condoned.¶12
The court held
The condonation application is ordered only insofar as respondents 9 and 11 are concerned — the legal heirs actually served, who neither entered appearance through counsel nor offered opposition; the effect of the order is accordingly confined to them.ratio¶23
2.
Whether, in an application to bring legal representatives on record, service effected on any one legal heir permits the Court to treat that heir as representing the entire estate.¶21
The court held
In an application to bring legal representatives on record, once even one legal heir is served, the Court may treat the served heir as representing the estate, applying the doctrine of substantive representation.ratio¶21

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Limitation Act5¶12

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
S.A.No.1685 of 2008 stood abated following the death of its sixth respondent, Subbaraya Gounder.¶18
Prior proceeding
CMP No. 16046 of 2023 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 4722 days in moving to set aside that abatement.¶12
Prior proceeding
Legal-representative notices: respondents 9 and 11 were served with notice.¶19
Prior proceeding
Notice intended for respondents 10 and 12 came back undelivered, the addressees being dead.¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
C. Ponnusamy¶7
Ramanan, N. Manoharan
respondent
M. Ramasamy¶10
respondent
Subbaraya Gounder¶18
respondent
Rathinam¶13
respondent
Annakodi¶13

Coram

AI extract

V. Lakshminarayananauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 9 Dec 2025 · December
Registered: 19 Jul 2023
Case no.: CMP/16046/2023
CNR: HCMA011003092023
Bench: V. Lakshminarayanan
Disposal: ORDERED
Case type: CMP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V. Lakshminarayanan

The Society of Daughters of Vs Government of India
8 Dec 2025
S.Karan Vs the Commissioner
8 Dec 2025
All Omni Bus Owners Association Vs the Transport Commissioner
8 Dec 2025
C. Ponnusamy Vs M. Ramasamy
9 Dec 2025
C. Ponnusamy Vs M. Ramasamy
9 Dec 2025
C. Ponnusamy Vs M. Ramasamy
9 Dec 2025

Cite this judgement

C. Ponnusamy v. M. Ramasamy, CMP/16046/2023 (MAD), decided on 9 December 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Limitation Act5

View all statutes

Procedural history4

S.A.No.1685 of 2008 stood abated following the death of its sixth respondent, Subbaraya Gounder.
CMP No. 16046 of 2023 was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of a delay of 4722 days in moving to set aside that abatement.

View full history

Bench / Coram

V. Lakshminarayanan

Parties & counsel