Allowed

Amudha (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Meghala and another v. Deivanai and Another

Madras HC2 Jul 2026A/1603/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this short order, the Madras High Court allowed an application under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S. Rules and Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone a delay of 406 days. The court considered the reasons in the affidavit and found no cause the respondents to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The prayer to condone the delay of 406 days and restore the suit on the file of the Court.

Amudha (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Meghala and another Vs… — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

A No. 1603 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE

¶6

A No. 1603 of 2026 in C.S.No.122 of 2019

¶7

AMUDHA (Deceased)

¶8

1.Mrs.Meghala New No.2, Old No.26/1, Hospital Road, Subbu Pillai Garden, T. Nagar, Chennai 17

¶9

Mrs.Geetha

¶10

No.209 Rockledge Avenue, Buchanan, NY 10511, USA

¶11

Represented by her Power Agent Mrs.Megala New No.2, Old No.26/1, Hospital Road, Subbu Pillai Garden, T. Nagar, Chennai 17

¶12

..Applicants

¶13

¶14

Deivanai No14 Anna Street, Subbu Pillai Garden, T. Nagar, Chennai 17

¶15

J.Murali New No.2, Old No.26/1, Hospital Road, Subbu Pillai Garden, T. Nagar, Chennai 17.

¶16

..Respondents

¶17

__________ Page1 of 4

¶18

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

¶19

A No. 1603 of 2026

¶20

PRAYER : This application is filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of O.S.Rules read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963, praying to condone the delay of 406 days in filing the application to set aside the order dated 10/11/2023 in C.S.No.122 of 2019 which was dismissed for non-prosecution and restore the suit on the file of this Court.

¶21

For Applicants: Mr.Darshit B Jain For Respondents: No appearance

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This application has been filed praying to condone the delay of 406 days

¶24

in filing the application to set aside the order dated 10/11/2023 passed in C.S.No.122 of 2019 which was dismissed for non-prosecution and restore the suit on the file of this Court.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and perused the materials available on record. Despite service of notice and the learned Counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the respondents.

¶26

3.Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this application, this application is allowed.

¶27

02-07-2026

¶28

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶29

MFA

¶30

__________ Page2 of 4

¶31

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

¶32

A No. 1603 of 2026

¶33

__________ Page3 of 4

¶34

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

¶35

A No. 1603 of 2026

¶36

DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.

¶37

MFA

¶38

A No. 1603 of 2026 in C.S.No.122 of 2019

¶39

02-07-2026

¶40

__________ Page4 of 4

¶41

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

Amudha (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Meghala and another v. Deivanai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amudha (Deceased) 1.Mrs.Meghala and another v. Deivanai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.R.Sekar Vs v.Nambirajan and 4 Others

The Sub Registrar Vs v.Ramalingam and another

V.K.Sathyamoorthy Vs Iniya alias Rathika

T.Rajendran Vs Mrs.Komala

Priya Ravi Vs Ms Prema Ravoori

Sathish Chandra Suriya Pandian Vs Lakshmi Prabha