Plaintiffs sought to set aside abatement of their suit after the death of the second plaintiff, condone a 4192-day delay, and implead legal representatives. The High Court found no proper explanation for the enormous delay and declined to interfere with the trial court's dismissal.
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.
CRP(MD). No.3776 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 15/12/2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
CRP(MD). No.3776 of 2025 and CMP(MD)No.19868 of 2025
... Petitioners 4 and 5 / Proposed plaintiffs 5 and 6
Vs
PRAYER :-
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.08.2025 made in IA No.1 of 2025 in OS No.148 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Karambakkudi.
For Petitioners : Mr. K.C.Maniyarasu Advocate.
1/4
CRP(MD). No.3776 of 2025
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 12.08.2025 made in IA No.1 of 2023 in OS No.148 of 2023 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Karambakkudi.
2/4
CRP(MD). No.3776 of 2025
liberal approach in condonation of delay is not a license for negligence or inaction. The applicant must show that he acted with due diligence and that the delay was beyond his control". He has also relied upon another judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 321 in the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom V. Bhargavi Amma where, "the length of delay is immaterial but the acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. However, where the delay is enormous, the explanation must be equally convincing".
15.12.2025
Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no pnn
3/4
CRP(MD). No.3776 of 2025
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J
pnn
ORDER IN CRP(MD). No.3776 of 2025 and CMP(MD)No.19868 of 2025
Date : 15/12/2025
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to condone a delay of 4192 days and to set aside abatement caused by the death of the second plaintiff.
Whether proposed plaintiffs 5 and 6 should be brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh and othersReferred
(2010) 8 SCC 685 · Who else cites this
Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom V. Bhargavi AmmaReferred
(2008) 8 SCC 321 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Selvaraj
Aarumugam (died)
Archunan
Azhagesan
Indirani
Bharathiraja
N.Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
