Allowed¶10

S.R. Dominic v. S.K. Padmanabhan

Madras HC10 Jul 2025CMP/26987/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: condonation of delay; 3701 days; abatement; death of appellant S.R.Dominic; legal heir; impleadment; second appellant; Order XXII Rule 3 CPC; Order XXII Rule 10 CPC; wrong provision not fatal; partition among brothers and sisters; subject property allotted to petitioner; exclusive right to prosecute appeal; S.A.No.477 of 2011; C.M.P.Nos.26987, 26995 & 26999 of 2023; C.V.Karthikeyan, J.; Madras High Court; decided 10.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 3701 days condoned; abatement caused by the death of the sole appellant S.R.Dominic set aside; petitioner brought on record as second appellant; Registry directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title of the Second Appeal. ¶10

S.R. Dominic Vs S.K. Padmanabhan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 3701 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the appellant should be condoned. +2 more

¶3

Court's answer

The delay of 3701 days stands condoned and the abatement caused by the death of the appellant is set aside, as the petitions seeking that relief are allowed.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Mentioning a wrong provision (filing under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC instead of Order XXII Rule 10 CPC) is not fatal.

¶6

Key takeaways

Accepting the petitioner's contention that the subject property was allotted to him pursuant to a partition among the family members, the petitioner alone has a right to prosecute the appeal, and the petitions are allowed notwithstanding the respondents' objection regarding other legal heirs.ratio¶6
The Registry is directed to amend the cause title of the Second Appeal to reflect the death of the sole appellant and to bring the petitioner on record as second appellant to prosecute the appeal further.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

C.M.P.Nos.26987, 26995 & 26999 of 2023 in S.A.No.477 of 2011 sought condonation of a delay of 3701 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the sole appellant, S.R.Dominic, and impleadment of the proposed petitioner, his legal heir, as second appellant. The respondents objected that the proposed petitioner was not the only surviving legal heir, two other brothers and two other sisters also surviving and claiming a right to prosecute the appeal. The petitioner contended that a partition among the family members had allotted the subject property to him alone. Although the impleading petition was filed under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC rather than Order XXII Rule 10 CPC, C.V.Karthikeyan, J. held that mentioning a wrong provision is not fatal. Accepting that the subject property belongs to the petitioner, the Court allowed the petitions and directed the Registry to amend the cause title of the Second Appeal to reflect the death of the sole appellant and bring the petitioner on record as second appellant.

S.R. Dominic v. S.K. Padmanabhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.R. Dominic v. S.K. Padmanabhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Abraham Thomas (Since Deceased) 1.Mrs.Licy Thomas and 2 others Vs Mr. Sunny thomas and another

K.Vijayachamundeeswari and Another Vs S.Uma Maheswari

Mrs.v.Suryakala Vs Mrs.K.Srividhya

S.R.Domnic (Died) 1. Reeta Vs S.K. Padmanabhan (Died), Irudhaya Mary (Died) 1. P. Louis Arokiaraj

K.Rathinavelu (Died) Vs Dhanabakkiyam

V.Thangel (Died) Vs C.Dhandapani Naicker(died)