Allowed¶18

Veeramuthu Naicker v. Rangaraju Naidu (Died)

Madras HC15 Dec 2025CMP/3518/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

restoration of appeal dismissed for default; non-prosecution; vakalat not filed; second appeal S.A.No.1049 of 1992; CMP.No.3518 of 2017; Madras High Court; V. Lakshminarayanan J; appeal restored; posted for hearing 20.01.2026; courts below: Subordinate Judge Cuddalore, Principal District Munsif Kallakurichi

What did the court decide?

Miscellaneous petition allowed; second appeal S.A.No.1049 of 1992, dismissed for default on 24.01.2017, restored and posted for hearing on 20.01.2026. ¶18

Veeramuthu Naicker Vs Rangaraju Naidu (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 15.12.2025

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶5

CMP.No.3518 of 2017 in S.A.No.1049 of 1992

¶6

1.Veeramuthu Naicker 2.Chinnaswami Naicker 3.Muthuvel (died) 4.Vaiyapuri Udayar (died) 5.Masilamani Ammal (died) 6.Muniammal 7.M.Ramalingam 8.M.Durairaj 9.M.Veeramuthu 10.M.Muthukumar 11.M.Muthulakshmi 12.Poomathi 13.Valarmathi 14.V.Pannerselvam 15.V.Ilaiyakannu 16.Marimuthu 17.Pachamuthu ... Petitioners Vs. 1.Rangaraju Naidu (died) 2.Prema 3.Murali ... Respondents

¶7

For Petitioners : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

¶8

For Respondents 2 & 3: Mr.Pon Balaji

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This application has been filed to restore the second appeal which was dismissed for default on 24.01.2017.

¶13

A perusal of the judgment dated 24.01.2017 shows that on the day, the appeal was listed for hearing, the present counsel for the petitioners had reported that the appellants had instructed him to appear in the matter, but vakalat had not yet been executed. On an earlier day, namely 23.01.2017, the counsel for the appellant had reported that he is not ready to argue the matter. Consequently, the appeal was listed for dismissal. On 24.01.2017, as Vakalat had not yet been filed, this court dismissed the appeal for non prosecution. An application was filed to restore in time on 20.02.2017 along with vakalat of all the appellants.

¶14

Ms.Swathi states that she has taken steps for the respondents. The respondents have been served. The counsel has also entered appearance earlier. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

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

¶17