Allowed¶55

Dr.T.Velayudam v. Tmt. Thilakavathi Santhaseelan

Madras HC16 Apr 2026CMP/10115/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of dismissed revision petition; High Court of Judicature at Madras; K. Kumaresh Babu, J.; dated 16-04-2026; CMP No. 10115 of 2026 in CRP No. 3188 of 2011; CRP dismissed on 23.01.2023; restoration allowed on grounds of petitioner's old age (about 80 years) and chronic disease supported by medical records; underlying claim under the Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed and CRP No. 3188 of 2011 is restored to the file of the Court, with no order as to costs. ¶55

Dr.T.Velayudam Vs Tmt. Thilakavathi Santhaseelan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP No. 10115 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 16-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

CMP No. 10115 of 2026 IN CRP NO. 3188 OF 2011

Dr.T.Velayudam

..Petitioner(s)

Tmt. Thilakavathi Santhaseelan

¶11

Selvi Narmadha Santhaseelan

¶12

Selvi Vedha Santhaseelan

¶13

S.Santhanlatchumy

¶14

Sumathradevi

¶15

Munisamy

¶16

Soudagar

¶17

Colonel C.K.Gangadharan (Retd.)

¶18

Suganya

¶19

10.C.Essoudasse

¶20

11.S.Adhikesavan(A)

¶21

12.M.Malini Cambusier

¶22

13.Julia Cambusier

¶23

14.Karthikeyan

¶24

15.S.Shankar

¶25

16.Rohini Gangadharan

¶26

17.Tamilarasi

¶27

18.Mohammed Macoloom

¶28

19.D.K.Sharma

¶29

20.Gowrimani

¶30

21.Purushothaman

¶31

22.Mohammed Macoloom

¶32

23.S.Radhakrishnan

¶33

24.Malathy

¶34

25.Sivasankaran

¶35

26.Suriyamurthy

¶36

27.Indiradevi

¶37

28.Velmurugan

¶38

..Respondent(s)

¶39

__________ Page1 of 4

¶40

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

¶41

CMP No. 10115 of 2026

¶42

Prayer : This petition to restore CRP No. 3188 of 2011 dismissed on 23.01.2023 on the file of this Court.

¶43

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.S.Kishore Kumar
For Respondent(s):	Mr.S.Vadivel – RR4,5,6,8,19,21,22,25,26, & 27.
	Mr.T.M.Naveen for Mr.J.P.Jotheeswaran – RR11,
	12 & 17
	Ms.G.Sumitra – R15
	No appearance – RR1 & 2
	Sd-N/A for RR10,23,13,14,16,18, 24 & 28
	No ready in notice reg.-RR3, 7, 9 and 20.

¶44

O R D E R

¶45

This petition has been filed to restore CRP No. 3188 of 2011 dismissed on 23.01.2023 to the file of this Court.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the

¶47

materials placed on record.

¶48

The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the restoration by contending that the claim of the petitioner under the Agricultural Tenancy Laws of the Puducherry Union [The Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970] itself is not maintainable as he does not have title to the entire property and what he was purchased only a plot, which could be used only for residential purposes. Having not diligently prosecuted the Revision, the petitioner cannot be entitled for restoration of the Revision Petition.

¶49

Page2 of 4

¶50

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

¶51

CMP No. 10115 of 2026

¶52

A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition would indicate

¶53

that the age of the petitioner would be about 80 years and he had indicated that due to his old age and bare health condition, he had chronic disease, which had intervened with the diligence in prosecuting the Revision. When the petitioner had granted substantial reasoning, which had also been supported by the medical records filed along with the typed set of papers and also taking into consideration his age, this Court is inclined to allow this miscellaneous petition.

¶54