Allowed

Subashini v. P.Loganathan

Madras HC4 Jul 2025CMP/21769/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed CMPs filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and Order XXII Rules 4 and 9 of CPC to condone delay in adding a legal representative, set aside abatement due to respondent's death, and bring a proposed respondent on record. Consent of respondents' counsel was noted.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed without costs; Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment in appeal papers.

Subashini Vs P.Loganathan — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CMP.Nos.21769, 21926 & 21925 of 2022 in A.S.No.426 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 04.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

¶6

CMP.Nos.21769, 21926 & 21925 of 2022

¶7

in A.S.No.426 of 2021

¶8

Mrs.Subashini ... Petitioner /

¶9

Appellant in all CMPs

¶10

Vs.

¶11

1.P. Loganathan, (Deceased)

¶12

Mrs. Sunitha

¶13

... Respondents / Respondents in all CMPs

¶14

Mrs.L.Malathi @ Mala

¶15

... Respondent /

¶16

Proposed respondent in all CMPs

¶17

PRAYER IN CMP.No.21769 of 2022 : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition

¶18

filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 91 days in filing the application to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.426 / 2021.

¶19

PRAYER IN CMP.No.21926 of 2022 : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition

¶20

filed under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC, praying to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first respondent, Loganathan in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.426 of 2021.

¶21

Page No.1 of 4

¶22

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

¶23

CMP.Nos.21769, 21926 & 21925 of 2022 in A.S.No.426 of 2021

¶24

PRAYER IN CMP.No.21925 of 2022 : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, praying to bring on record the third respondent / proposed respondent as legal representative of deceased 1st respondent in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.426 of 2021.

¶25

For Petitioner : Mr.Akbar Basha for Mr.B.R.Sankaralingam in all CMPs

¶26

For Respondents : Mr.K.Premkumar for R2 & R3 in all CMPs

¶27

COMMON ORDER

¶28

CMP.No.21769 of 2022 has been filed to condone the delay of 91 days in filing the application to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased 1st respondent in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.426 / 2021.

¶29

CMP.No.21926 of 2022 has been filed to set aside the abatement

¶30

caused due to the death of the first respondent, Loganathan in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.426 of 2021.

¶31

CMP.No.21925 of 2022 has been filed to bring on record the third

¶32

respondent / proposed respondent as legal representative of deceased 1st respondent in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.426 of 2021.

¶33

Page No.2 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

CMP.Nos.21769, 21926 & 21925 of 2022 in A.S.No.426 of 2021

¶36

Heard Mr.Akbar Basha, learned counsel appearing for the

¶37

petitioner / appellant and Mr.K.Premkumar, learned counsel appearing for

¶38

the respondents 2 & 3 and he has no objection for allowing this Petition.

¶39

On being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed

¶40

in support of these petitions and in view of no objection having been stated by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3, this Court is inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are

¶41

allowed without costs.

¶42

04.07.2025

¶43

¶44

Note: Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the appeal papers.

¶45

Page No.3 of 4

¶46

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

¶47

CMP.Nos.21769, 21926 & 21925 of 2022 in A.S.No.426 of 2021

¶48

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

¶49

¶50

CMP.Nos.21769, 21926 & 21925 of 2022 in A.S.No.426 of 2021

04 / 07 / 2025

(1/2)

Page No.4 of 4

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

Subashini v. P.Loganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subashini v. P.Loganathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Janakiraman Naidu (Died) 1.Santhi Vs Bangaru Ammal

K. Arumugam (Died) 1. a. Yasotha Vs K. Jayaraman

K. Arumugam (Died) 1. a. Yasotha Vs K. Jayaraman

D.Muniammal Vs P. Sakunthala

Thirumal Azhagu Nadar (Died), T.Mythili Devi, Vs C. Kumar

C.A. Susheela (died) Vs R. Srinivasan