Allowed¶26

Subramaniya Gounder v. Sekar

Madras HC1 Aug 2025CMP/19234/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; setting aside abatement; death of first respondent during pendency of second appeal; impleading legal representatives; proposed respondents set ex parte despite service; duty to answer substantial questions of law; Madras High Court; S.A.No.771 of 2009; CMP Nos.19234, 19235 and 19237 of 2021; Tiruvannamalai.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the applications to set aside abatement condoned; abatement set aside; legal representatives of the deceased first respondent brought on record as further respondents in the second appeal; proposed respondents R6-R9 set ex parte. ¶26

Subramaniya Gounder Vs Sekar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay in filing applications to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first respondent should be condoned, the abatement set aside, and the legal representatives brought on record in the pending second appeal.

¶18

Court's answer

The proposed respondents R6-R9, legal representatives of the deceased first respondent, were duly served with private notice (affidavit of service and acknowledgment cards produced) and, having taken no steps to appear, were set ex parte in the applications.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

Although the delay in filing appears considerable, it merits condonation because the proposed respondents, despite receiving notice, did not appear, and the petitioners stated in their supporting affidavit that they were unaware of the first respondent's death and filed the applications immediately upon coming to know of it.

¶23

Key takeaways

Since the Second Appeal had been admitted and substantial questions of law framed, the Court is under a duty to answer those substantial questions of law.ratio¶25
The applications are allowed and the delay in filing the application to set aside abatement stands condoned.ratio¶26
The abatement is set aside and the legal representatives named in the applications are brought on record as further respondents in the second appeal.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.V. Karthikeyan, J.) allowed CMP Nos.19234, 19235 and 19237 of 2021 in S.A.No.771 of 2009, condoning the delay in filing applications to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first respondent (Sekar). The abatement was set aside and his legal representatives (proposed respondents 6-9) were brought on record as further respondents in the second appeal. Although the delay appeared considerable, the Court noted that the served proposed respondents took no steps to appear and were set ex parte, and that the petitioners had applied promptly upon learning of the death; the prior admission of the second appeal with framed substantial questions of law cast a duty on the Court to answer them.

¶1

CMP Nos.19234, 19235 and 19237 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-08-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN CMP Nos.19234, 19235 and 19237 of 2021 in S.A.No.771 of 2009

¶5

Subramaniya Gounder S/o. Rama Gounder, Veluganandal Village, Tiruvannamalai Dist.

¶6

Petitioner in all cases

¶7

¶8

SEKAR

¶9

Died S/o Pachaimuthu Gounder Veluganandal Village, Thiruvannamalai Dt and 8 Others

¶10

Respondents in all cases

¶11

In all cases For Petitioner :

¶12

Mr.T.R.Rajaraman

¶13

For Respondents :

¶14

Ms.G.Sumitra For R2 to R4

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

Affidavit of service has been filed and the private notice issued to

¶17

the Legal Representatives of the deceased first respondent viz., 6^th - 9^th respondents, have been served. Acknowledgment cards have also been produced. In view of the same, the said proposed respondents R6-R9 are set exparte in these applications.

¶18

2. These applications have been filed to condone the delay in filing the applications to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the

¶19

1/4

¶20

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

¶21

CMP Nos.19234, 19235 and 19237 of 2021

¶22

first respondent, to set aside abatement and to bring on record his legal representatives.

¶23

3. Even though the delay appears to be considerable, it is seen that the proposed respondents though have received notice, have not taken any steps to appear before this Court. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it had been stated that the death of the first respondent was not known to the petitioners and immediately after coming to know the same, the applications were filed, however with delay.

¶24

4. At any rate, the Second Appeal had been admitted and substantial

¶25

questions of law had also been framed. This casts a duty on the Court to answer the substantial questions of law.

¶26

5. Hence, these applications are allowed and the delay in filing the application to set aside abatement stands condoned. The abatement is set aside and the legal representatives as stated in the applications to be brought on record as further respondents in the second appeal.

01-08-2025

vum

2/4

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

¶32

CMP Nos.19234, 19235 and 19237 of 2021

¶33