Allowed¶27

Kandasamy v. Pavayammal (Died)

Madras HC1 Aug 2025CMP/7488/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; setting aside abatement due to death of respondent; substitution of legal representatives in second appeal; duty of Court to answer framed substantial question of law; Madras High Court; C.V. Karthikeyan J.; CMP Nos.7488, 7491, 7492 of 2023 in SA No.299 of 2009; Kandasamy v. Pavayammal (died) and Others; order dated 01-08-2025.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the application to set aside abatement condoned; abatement set aside; legal representatives of the deceased second respondent brought on record as further respondents in SA No.299 of 2009. ¶27

Kandasamy Vs Pavayammal (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP Nos.7488, 7491 and 7492 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01-08-2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN CMP Nos.7488, 7491 and 7492 of 2023 in SA No.299 of 2009

¶5

Kandasamy

¶6

S/o. Late.Karumana Gounder, Rayapalayam, Nasiyanur Post, Erode Dist.

¶7

Petitioner in all petitions

¶8

¶9

Pavayammal (died) (Died) and 6 Others

¶10

Respondents in all petitions

¶11

For Petitioner (s):

¶12

Mr.N.Manoharan

¶13

For Respondent(s):

¶14

Mr.S.Kaithamalaikumaran For R3 to R5

¶15

COMMON ORDER

¶16

These three applications have been filed consequent to the death of

¶17

the second respondent, to bring on record the legal representatives. Unfortunately, there has been a delay in filing the application.

¶18

2. The applications have been filed to condone the delay in filing the

¶19

petition to set aside abatement caused due to the death of the second respondent, to set aside abatement and to bring on record his legal representatives as further respondents.

¶20

1/2

¶21

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

¶22

CMP Nos.7488, 7491 and 7492 of 2023

¶23

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN,J.,

¶24

vum

¶25

3. Notice had been directed and the counsel had entered appearance for the proposed respondents.

¶26

4. The learned counsel had raised an objection stating that the delay had not been properly explained.

¶27

5. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, since the Second Appeal had been admitted and the substantial question of law had been framed and a duty casts on the Court to answer the substantial question of law, these applications are allowed and the delay in filing the application to set aside abatement stands condoned. The abatement is set aside and the legal representatives as stated in the applications are brought on record as further respondents in the second appeal.

01-08-2025

(½)

vum

The Principal District Munsif, Erode.

¶33

CMP Nos.7488, 7491 and 7492 of 2023 in SA No.299 of 2009

¶34