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.

Krishnan Vs K.Moorthy — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2025
Krishnan Vs K.MoorthyKrishnan v. K.Moorthy

Allowed¶32

Krishnan v. K.Moorthy

Madras HC17 Feb 2025CMP/28622/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay (388 days); setting aside of abatement owing to death of first appellant Krishnan; joinder of legal representatives (petitioners 5 to 7 and third respondent) as appellants 5 to 7; Madras High Court; Justice S. S. Sundar; decided 17-02-2025; arises out of Second Appeal SA No. 1694 of 2008 between Krishnan and K. Moorthy (Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampalli/Pochampatti Taluk, Krishnagiri District); connected CMP Nos. 18563 of 2018, 28623 and 28626 of 2024; counsel: V. Nicholas (no appearance) for appellants in the 2024 CMPs; Zeenath Begum for Mr. D. Shivakumaran for Respondent 1; D. Shivakumaran, V. Nicholas and N.E.A Dinesh for appellants in SA No. 1694 of 2008; D. Shivakumaran and V. Sekar for Respondent 1 in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 388 days condoned; abatement set aside; petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and added as appellants 5 to 7.

Why is it important?

Having satisfied itself with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the court ordered the petitions as prayed for — condoning the delay of 388 days, setting aside the abatement caused by the death of the first appellant, and bringing on record petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant to be added as appellants 5 to 7. ¶32

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 388 days condoned; abatement set aside; petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and added as appellants 5 to 7.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 388 days in filing petitions to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first appellant should be condoned, and whether petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent should be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and added as appellants 5 to 7.

Court's answer

Having satisfied itself with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the court ordered the petitions as prayed for — condoning the delay of 388 days, setting aside the abatement caused by the death of the first appellant, and bringing on record petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant to be added as appellants 5 to 7.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, 17-02-2025 (S. S. Sundar, J.) — CMP Nos. 28622, 28623 and 28626 of 2024 and CMP No. 18563 of 2018, connected with SA No. 1694 of 2008 (Krishnan v. K. Moorthy): petitions to condone a delay of 388 days in filing applications to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first appellant, to set aside the abatement, and to bring on record petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and add them as appellants 5 to 7. Applications not contested by the other respondents; the court, satisfied with the reasons stated in the supporting affidavits, ordered the petitions as prayed for.

A

CMP NO. 28622 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17-02-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. S. SUNDAR

CMP NO. 28622 of 2024

AND

CMP NO. 18563 OF 2018,SA NO. 1694 OF 2008,CMP NO. 28626 OF 2024,CMP

NO. 28623 OF 2024

KRISHNAN (Died) and 6 Others Appellant(s) Vs K.Moorthy S/o.Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampatti Taluk, Krishnagiri District and 2 Others Respondent(s) CMP NO. 18563 of 2018 K.Moorthy S/o Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village Mathur Post Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri Dist Appellant(s) Vs KRISHNAN S/o.Late Sangili Moopan, Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampalli Tk Krishnagiri Dist. and 4 Others Respondent(s) SA NO. 1694 of 2008 KRISHNAN S/o Late Sangili Moopan Eachangadu Village Mathur Post Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri Dist and 3 Others Appellant(s) Vs

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

K.Moorthy S/o Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village Mathur Post Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri Dist and another Respondent(s) CMP NO. 28626 of 2024 KRISHNAN (Died) and 6 Others Appellant(s) Vs K.Moorthy S/o.Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampatti Taluk, Krishnagiri District and 2 Others Respondent(s) CMP NO. 28623 of 2024 KRISHNAN (Died) and 6 Others Appellant(s) Vs K.Moorthy S/o.Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampatti Taluk, Krishnagiri District and 2 Others Respondent(s) CMP NO. 28622 of 2024 For Appellant(s): M/s.V.Nicholas- No Appearance For Respondent(s): M/s. Zeenath Begum For Mr. D. Shivakumaran For R1 CMP NO. 18563 of 2018 For Appellant(s): For Respondent(s):

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

SA NO. 1694 of 2008

For Appellant(s):

M/s.D.Shivakumaran M/s. V. Nicholas N.E.A Dinesh

I St Appellant - Died ( Steps Due )

D. ShivakumaranV.Sekar For R1 Dt.16/02/2009R2 - Died (steps Due To Bring On RecordThe Lrs Of The Deceased Reg. R2)

For Respondent(s):

CMP NO. 28626 of 2024

For Appellant(s): M/S.V.NICHOLAS- NO APPEARANCE

For Respondent(s):

M/S. ZEENATH BEGUM FOR MR. D. SHIVAKUMARAN FOR R1

CMP NO. 28623 of 2024

For Appellant(s):

M/S.V.NICHOLAS- NO APPEARANCE

For Respondent(s):

M/S. ZEENATH BEGUM FOR MR. D. SHIVAKUMARAN FOR R1

ORDER

These petitions are filed to condone the delay of 388 days in filing a petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first appellant, to set aside the abatement and bring on record petitioners 5 to7 and the third respondent as the legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and to add them as appellants 5 to 7.

These applications are not contested by other respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners states that since the petitioners are the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis legal representatives of the deceased first appellant, they are entitled to come on record

to prosecute the appeal to see its logical end.

Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, these petitions are ordered, as prayed for.

17-02-2025

Asr

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

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 388 days in filing petitions to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first appellant should be condoned, and whether petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent should be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and added as appellants 5 to 7.¶28
The court held
Having satisfied itself with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the petitions, the court ordered the petitions as prayed for — condoning the delay of 388 days, setting aside the abatement caused by the death of the first appellant, and bringing on record petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant to be added as appellants 5 to 7.ratio¶32

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Death of the first appellant (Krishnan) during the pendency of the proceedings caused abatement; the petitions seek condonation of a 388-day delay in filing applications to set aside the abatement.¶28
Prior proceeding
The petitions further sought to bring on record petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and to add them as appellants 5 to 7.¶28
Prior proceeding
Matter disposed together with connected filings CMP No. 18563 of 2018, SA No. 1694 of 2008, CMP Nos. 28626 and 28623 of 2024.¶6
Prior proceeding
Registry note: first appellant shown as deceased with steps due.¶15
Prior proceeding
Registry note: second respondent also deceased; steps due to bring the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent on record.¶16

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
KRISHNAN (Died) and 6 Others¶8
V. Nicholas
respondent
K.Moorthy S/o.Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampatti Taluk, Krishnagiri District and 2 Others¶8
Zeenath Begum, D. Shivakumaran
appellant
K.Moorthy S/o Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village Mathur Post Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri Dist¶8
respondent
KRISHNAN S/o.Late Sangili Moopan, Eachangadu Village, Mathur Post, Pochampalli Tk Krishnagiri Dist. and 4 Others¶8
appellant
KRISHNAN S/o Late Sangili Moopan Eachangadu Village Mathur Post Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri Dist and 3 Others¶8
D. Shivakumaran, V. Nicholas, N.E.A Dinesh
respondent
K.Moorthy S/o Kariya Gounder Eachangadu Village Mathur Post Pochampalli Taluk Krishnagiri Dist and another¶10
D. Shivakumaran, V. Sekar

Coram

AI extract

S. S. Sundarauthor¶3

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 17 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 10 Dec 2024
Case no.: CMP/28622/2024
CNR: HCMA010009682019
Bench: S. S. Sundar
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 S. S. Sundar

the Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu Vs nil
13 Feb 2025
Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu Vs nil
13 Feb 2025
Administrator General and Official Trustee of Tamilnadu Vs nil
13 Feb 2025
Sumalatha Vs P. Arumugha Mudaliar(died)
17 Feb 2025
Valli Vs Chandra
19 Feb 2025
P.Subramani(Died) Vs Rajammal
19 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

Krishnan v. K.Moorthy, CMP/28622/2024 (MAD), decided on 17 February 2025.

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

Procedural history5

Death of the first appellant (Krishnan) during the pendency of the proceedings caused abatement; the petitions seek condonation of a 388-day delay in filing applications to set aside the abatement.
The petitions further sought to bring on record petitioners 5 to 7 and the third respondent as legal representatives of the deceased first appellant and to add them as appellants 5 to 7.

View full history

Bench / Coram

S. S. Sundar

Parties & counsel