Allowed¶64

R.Ramasamy v. R.Arumugam (Died)

Madras HC25 Feb 2025CMP/19295/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 3443 days; set aside abatement; death of 1st respondent R.Arumugam; impleading legal heirs respondents 3 to 7; second appeal SA No. 599 of 2008; CMP Nos. 19295, 19298, 19301 of 2021; notices returned 'left'/unclaimed; respondents avoiding service; Madras High Court; single judge S.S. Sundar; order dated 25-02-2025; petitions ordered.

What did the court decide?

All the petitions are ordered: the delay of 3443 days is condoned, the abatement caused by the death of the 1st respondent is set aside, and the legal heirs (respondents 3 to 7) are brought on record in SA No. 599 of 2008. ¶64

R.Ramasamy Vs R.Arumugam (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP NO. 19295 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 25-02-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR

¶5

CMP NO. 19295 of 2021

¶6

AND

¶7

SA NO. 599 OF 2008,CMP NO. 19298 OF 2021,CMP NO. 19301 OF

¶8

2021

¶9

R.Ramasamy

¶10

S/o.Raman, 41, East 9th Street, Johnsonpet,Husthampatti, Salem-7

Appellant(s)

R.Arumugam (died)

S/o Raman, No 40a, East 9th Street Johnsonpet Husthampatti Salem -7. and 6 Others

¶15

Respondent(s)

¶16

SA NO. 599 of 2008

¶17

R.Ramasamy

¶18

S/o.Raman, 41, East 9th Street, Johnsonpet,Husthampatti, Salem-7

Appellant(s)

R.Arumugam

S/o.Raman, 40a, East 9thstreet, Johnsonpet, Hunthampatti, Salem-7 and another

¶23

Respondent(s)

¶24

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

¶25

CMP NO. 19298 of 2021

¶26

R.Ramasamy S/o.Raman, 41, East 9th Street, Johnsonpet,Husthampatti, Salem-7 Appellant(s)

¶27

¶28

R.Arumugam (died) S/o Raman,

¶29

No 40a, East 9th Street Johnsonpet Husthampatti Salem -7. and 6 Others

¶30

Respondent(s)

¶31

CMP NO. 19301 of 2021

¶32

R.Ramasamy

¶33

S/o.Raman, 41, East 9th Street, Johnsonpet,Husthampatti, Salem-7

¶34

Appellant(s)

¶35

¶36

R.Arumugam (died) S/o Raman,

¶37

No 40a, East 9th Street Johnsonpet Husthampatti Salem -7. and 6 Others

¶38

Respondent(s)

¶39

CMP NO. 19295 of 2021

¶40

For Appellant(s): Mr.B.Pachaiyappan for Mr.T.Gowthaman For Respondent(s): Cmp 19295,19298,19301/2021

¶41

R-3 A. Palaniamal W/o Late R. Arumugam, Res At No 30/40 East Street - 3 Johnsonpet Salem - 7

¶42

Rr4 To 7 - Left

¶43

Pvt. Notice

¶44

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

¶45

R4 - Unclaimed

¶46

Rr5 To 7 - Left

¶47

SA NO. 599 of 2008

¶48

For Appellant(s): M/s.T.Gowthaman G.Arul Murugan For Appellant M/s.SaravanakumarFor R2 (vide By Order Dated 18/06/2021 (vakalat Not Filed)R1 - Died - Steps Taken VideCmps 19295, 19298 & 19301/2021 For Respondent(s):

¶49

CMP NO. 19298 of 2021

¶50

For Appellant(s): M/s.T.Gowthaman T.Gowthaman G.Arul Murugan For Appellant For Respondent(s):

¶51

CMP NO. 19301 of 2021

¶52

For Appellant(s): M/s.T.Gowthaman T.Gowthaman G.Arul Murugan For Appellant For Respondent(s):

¶53

ORDER

¶54

These petitions are filed to condone the delay of 3443 days in filing a

¶55

petition to set aside abatement caused due to the death of the 1st respondent by name Mr.R.Arumugam ; to set aside abatement and to

¶56

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

¶57

being on record, respondents 3 to 7 as the legal heirs of the deceased 1st respondent in the second appeal.

¶58

This Court ordered notice. Though the 3rd respondent, namely the wife of the deceased 1st respondent was served, notice issued to other legal heirs of the 1st respondent is returned with an endorsement ''left''. Similarly, private notice sent to the 4th respondent was not claimed and notice issued to respondents 5 to 7 are returned with an endorsement ''left''.

¶59

This Court, having regard to the fact that the wife of the deceased 1st respondent had been served, she had not responded and notice to others was returned, either as ''left'' or ''unclaimed'', is of the view that the respondents are avoiding service.

¶60

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court scrutinized the application for condonation of delay meticulously and found that the petitioner has given sufficient reasons explaining the cause for the delay in filing the application to the satisfaction of this Court. Even though the delay is more than 9 ½ years, it is seen that the death of 1^st respondent is not known to the petitioner.

¶61

Since the delay has been properly explained and this Court has no reason to discard the reason or unable to doubt the bona fides of the litigation, is inclined to condone the inordinate delay.

¶62

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

¶63

25-02-2025

¶64