Disposed¶16

S.Ganiyammal v. P.Perumal (Died), 1) Panchamirtham

Madras HC15 Apr 2025CMP(MD)/3173/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; Section 5 Limitation Act; 935 days delay; second appeal against A.S.No.12 of 2018 (1st Additional District Court, Madurai) confirming O.S.NO.1030 of 2011 (II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai); settlement out of Court; CMP closed/disposed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; K.K. Ramakrishnan J.; S.Ganiyammal and others v. P.Perumal (died) and others; advocates V. Nagendran and V.S.Kishok Kumar; order dated 15/04/2025; no merits decided, no precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

No adjudication on the condonation prayer; the Court recorded learned counsel's submission that the matter was settled out of Court and closed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition. ¶16

S.Ganiyammal Vs P.Perumal (Died), 1) Panchamirtham — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP(MD). No.3173 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

¶4

Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

¶7

CMP(MD). No.3173 of 2025 in SA(MD) SR. No. 11150 of 2025 1. S.Ganiyammal, 2. S. Ramesh, 3. S. Saravanan, 4. R. Krishnamoorthy, 5. T. Natarajan, ... Petitioners/Appellants Vs P.Perumal (Died) 1 Pancham 2 Valarmathi 3 Kajendiran 4 Boominathan 5 Biravan ... Respondents/Respondents Prayer in CMP(MD). No.3173 of 2025 :-

¶8

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 935 days in filing the Second Appeal.

¶9

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

¶10

1/3

¶11

CMP(MD). No.3173 of 2025

¶12

Prayer in SA(MD) SR.No. 11150 of 2025:-

¶13

Second Appeal filed under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the decree and judgment dated 01.04.2022 passed by the 1^st Additional District Court, Madurai in A.S.No.12 of 2018, confirming the decree and judgment dated 01.07.2017, passed by the II Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai in O.S.NO.1030 of 2011.

¶14

ORDER:- This Miscellaneous Petition coming on for hearing on this day and upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon perusing the grounds of Appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Thiru. V. Nagendran, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Thiru. V.S.Kishok Kumar, Advocate for the respondents, this Court made the following order:

¶15

“When the matter was taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side submits that the matter was settled out of Court.

¶16