Dismissed¶117

Srinivasan (Died) 2.SUJA Krishna v. Dr.Jeyaram

Madras HC8 Apr 2025CMP(MD)/381/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Death of sole revision petitioner during pendency of CRP; order passed against dead person claimed to be nullity; Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC duty of pleader to communicate death of party; Order 22 Rule 3 CPC bringing legal representatives on record; Order 9 Rule 9 CPC restoration of petition; execution delivery E.P.No.21 of 2015 in O.S.No.501 of 2000 (Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai); SA(MD) Nos.679 & 988 of 2006 confirmed first appeal; P. Jesaya (2004) 13 SCC 431 followed; concealment of death tactics not permitted; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; CMP(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023 dismissed.

What did the court decide?

It is the duty of the petitioner's counsel to inform the Court regarding the death of the revision petitioner while hearing the revision petition itself; the failure to do so cannot be excused. ¶71

Srinivasan (Died) 2.SUJA Krishna Vs Dr.Jeyaram — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶117

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by this Court in CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015, after the death of the sole revision petitioner Srinivasan on 30.07.2021, is a nullity liable to be set aside, and whether the proposed petitioners 2 to 8 (legal heirs) should be brought on record and the revision petition restored. +1 more

¶31

Court's answer

It is the duty of the petitioner's counsel to inform the Court regarding the death of the revision petitioner while hearing the revision petition itself; the failure to do so cannot be excused.

¶71

Ratio / Principle

The legal heirs cannot claim ignorance of the pending Civil Revision Petition, since they had entered appearance in the execution proceedings, the death was intimated there by memo, they were impleaded pursuant to EA No.1 of 2021, and the execution petition was pending on account of the revision proceedings before this Court.

¶82

Key takeaways

Shifting the blame onto the respondent's counsel for non-disclosure of the death is not acceptable, the plea serving only to drag on the execution proceedings; following the cited Supreme Court judgments (including P. Jesaya) and this Court's order in N.Kamatchi Mudaliar, such tactics cannot be permitted to prevail, and the petitions were not entertained.ratio¶71

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) dismissed CMP(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023 filed under Order IX Rule 9 and Order XXII Rule 3 CPC by the legal heirs of Srinivasan, the deceased revision petitioner in CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015, seeking to set aside the order dated 21.06.2022 dismissing the revision petition as a nullity (the petitioner having died on 30.07.2021) and to bring the heirs on record. Held: under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC a duty is cast on the pleader to inform the Court of the death of a party; the legal heirs, who had entered appearance in the pending execution proceedings (E.P.No.21 of 2015 in O.S.No.501 of 2000), whose counsel filed a memo of death there, and who were impleaded pursuant to EA No.1 of 2021, could not claim ignorance of the pending revision petition; blaming the respondent's counsel was only an attempt to drag on the execution proceedings. Following General Manager, Raja Durbhunga; Shub Karan Bubna; P. Jesaya (2004) 13 SCC 431; and this Court's earlier order in N. Kamatchi Mudaliar, such tactics of concealing a party's death to later seek setting aside of the order cannot be permitted to prevail. Petitions dismissed.

¶1

Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 23.06.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI CMP(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023

¶6

¶7

CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015

1.Srinivasan (Died)

2.Suja Krishna

3.S.R.Sumedha Vallee

4.S.R.Senthil Vas Narayanan

¶12

5.S.R.Sylaja Vallee Narayan

¶13

6.S.R.Sarravana Vas Narayanan

¶14

7.S.R.Sobhana Vallee Narayan

¶15

8.S.R.Sree Vas Narayanan ...Proposed

¶16

Petitioners/ legal heirs of Revision petitioner, Srinivasan

¶17

Vs.

¶18

Dr.Jeyaram ... Respondent

¶19

Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Order 9 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code and under Order 22 Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the order, dated 21.06.2022, passed by this Court in CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015 and to restore the civil

¶20

1/18

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Govindaraju Vs The Director

K.Pandi Vs The Intelligent Officer

Karunarajan Vs The State of Tamilnadu

Karthick @ Valukkai Karthick Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Chithraivel @ Surya Vs The State of Tamilnadu

R.Pasupathi Vs The State of Tamilnadu