Petitions to condone long delays (883 and 2240 days) in setting aside abatement of an appeal arising from a partition suit, following deaths of the second and third respondents. The court, citing illness as cause and the need to hear all legal representatives in a partition matter, allowed all petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651, 6652 and 6654 to 6656 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.171 of 2016
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651, 6652 and 6654 to 6656 of 2025 in A.S.(MD).No.171 of 2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
(Order of the Court was made by C.V.Karthikeyan, J .)
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651 and 6652 of 2025 have been
filed to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the second respondent and to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent as respondents 4 and 5.
2. Notice had been directed to the said respondents. The
name of the 4th respondent had been printed in the cause list. The counsel had entered appearance for the 5th respondent.
3. C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6654 to 6656 of 2025 have been filed to
condone the delay of 2240 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, to set aside the abatement caused due to the death the third respondent and to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased third respondent as respondents 6 and 7.
_____________ Page 1 of 4_
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651, 6652 and 6654 to 6656 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.171 of 2016
4 . Notice had been directed to R6 and R7. Notice sent to R6
had been returned as “insufficient address”. However, notice had been served on R7. It is informed that R6 is the mother of R7. Learned counsel, who had entered appearance for R7, stated that he would file vakalt for R6 also. But however, we would not keep the petitions pending and the vakalt could be filed in the main Appeal Suit.
5. In the accompanying affidavits filed in support of these petitions, it had been stated that the petitioner suffered from illness and therefore, he could not contact his counsel to give necessary instructions to file these petitions. It was only thereafter that instructions could be given and hence, the entire process was delayed.
6 . From the records, we find that the suit had been filed for partition and separate possession and necessarily all the legal representatives would have to be heard, while taking a decision about partition in respect of the properties mentioned in the appeal suit. Taking that view into consideration, all these petitions are allowed.
_____________ Page 2 of 4_
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651, 6652 and 6654 to 6656 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.171 of 2016
7. Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in
the cause title reflecting the death of respondents 2 and 3 and bring on
record the respondents 4 and 5 as legal heirs of deceased second respondent and respondents 6 and 7 as legal heirs of deceased third respondent.
[C.V.K., J.] [R.V., J.]
vsm 24.09.2025
_____________ Page 3 of 4_
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651, 6652 and 6654 to 6656 of 2025 in A.S.(MD)No.171 of 2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J. and R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
vsm
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6649, 6651, 6652 and 6654 to 6656 of 2025 in A.S.(MD).No.171 of 2016
24.09.2025
_____________ Page 4 of 4_
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay of 883 and 2240 days in filing petitions to set aside abatement caused by death of respondents 2 and 3 should be condoned and legal representatives brought on record.
C.V.Karthikeyan
R.Vijayakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
