Dismissed¶33

P.Thangaraj v. P.Ramasamy(Died) 2. T.Manivel

Madras HC15 Dec 2025CMP(MD)/11809/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Withdrawal of civil miscellaneous petitions; dismissed as withdrawn; condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 55 days delay; abatement due to death of first respondent; Order 22 Rule 9(2) CPC; Order 22 Rule 4 CPC; legal representatives; impleadment; Section 100 CPC; second appeal; S.A(MD)No.543 of 2010; A.S.No.18 of 2008; O.S.No.158 of 2001; Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Dindigul; Additional Subordinate Judge Dindigul; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; K. Murali Shankar, J.; 15.12.2025; P. Thangaraj; P. Ramasamy.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the petitions; all three Civil Miscellaneous Petitions dismissed as withdrawn. ¶33

P.Thangaraj Vs P.Ramasamy(Died) 2. T.Manivel — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.(MD)No.11809, 11810 & 11811 of 2025 in S.A(MD)No.543 of 2010

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATE : 15.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR

¶6

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.11809, 11810 and 11811 of 2025

¶7

in S.A(MD)No.543 of 2010

¶8

P.Thangaraj : Petitioner (in all petitions)

Vs.

1.P.Ramasamy (died)

2.T.Manivel

3.Manikandan 4.T.Manimakudam 5.Rajendran 6.Nagaraj : Respondents (in all petitions)

¶13

PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No. 11809 of 2025: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 Limitation Act to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the petition for set aside the abatement caused on the death of the first respondent Ramasamy in SA(MD)No.543 of 2010.

¶14

PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No.11810 of 2025 : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under 22 Rule 9(2) of C.P.C., to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first respondent Ramasamy in SA(MD)No.543 of 2010.

¶15

1/4

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.P.(MD)No.11809, 11810 & 11811 of 2025 in S.A(MD)No.543 of 2010

¶18

PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No.11811 of 2025 : Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C., to bring on record the respondents 5 & 6 herein, legal representatives of the deceased first respondent and rank them as respondents 5 and 6 in SA(MD)No.543 of 2010.

¶19

PRAYER in S.A (MD)No. 543 of 2010 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree, dated 07.01.2010 passed in A.S.No.18 of 2008 on the file of the leaned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 15.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.158 of 2001 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dindigul.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.M.R.Sreenivasan,

¶21

For Respondents : Mr.M.P.Senthil, for R2.

¶22

: No Appearance, for R1.

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The above petitions have been filed (i) to condone the delay of 55 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first respondent (ii) to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the first respondent and (iii) to bring on record the petitioners

¶25

5 and 6 legal representatives of the deceased first respondent and rank them as respondents 5 and 6 in the above second appeal.

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

C.M.P.(MD)No.11809, 11810 & 11811 of 2025 in S.A(MD)No.543 of 2010

¶29

2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today

¶30

(ie., 15.12.2025), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he may be permitted to withdraw these petitions and he has