Allowed¶20

E.Selvaraj v. R.Natarajan

Madras HC23 Jan 2026CMP/19666/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of 220 days delay; setting aside abatement caused by deaths of appellants 2 to 5; impleading legal heirs/legal representatives as proposed respondents 2 to 8; C.M.P.Nos.19666, 19667 & 19670 (body cites 19671) of 2025 in S.A.No.611 of 2017; Madras High Court; K. Kumaresh Babu J.; C. Prakasam counsel for respondents 2 to 4 no objection; order dated 23-01-2026; Registry to amend cause title.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 220 days in filing the application to set aside abatement condoned; abatement set aside; legal heirs of the deceased appellants brought on record as proposed respondents 2 to 8 in S.A.No.611 of 2017; Registry directed to amend the cause title. ¶20

E.Selvaraj Vs R.Natarajan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23-01-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶5

C.M.P.Nos.19666, 19667 & 19670 of 2025 in S.A.No.611 of 2017

¶6

1.E.Selvaraj Bakkiam (Died) Ramachandran (Died) C.Saratha (Died) Tamilarasi (Died)

¶7

… Petitioners/ Appellants

¶8

¶9

1.R.Natarajan S/O.G.Rathinam, NDS Nagar, Dhanam Illam, Yerikkaral Road, Reddiyur Village, Salem- 636 004. dR

¶10

2.R.Sathya 3.Karthik 4.Thooyaavan 5.Chakkarapani 6.Mohanaraj 7.Jayalakshmi

¶11

8.Dhanush

¶12

… Respondent(s)/ Proposed respondents 2 to 8

¶13

ORDER

¶14

C.M.P.No.19666 of 2025 has been filed to condone the delay of 220 days delay in filing the application to set aside the abatement in filing the petition and caused due to the death of the deceased appellants 2 to 5 in the above Second Appeal

¶15

Page No. 1 of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

2.C.M.P.No.19667 of 2025 has been filed to set aside the abatement in filing the petition to bring the legal heirs of the deceased appallants 2 to 5 in the above Second Appeal.

¶17

3.C.M.P.No.19671 of 2025 has been filed to bring on record the Lrs as the Lts of the deceased appellants Nos.3 to 5 namely Sathy, Thooyavan, Chakkarapani, Mohanraj, Jayalakshmi and R.Dhanush as proposed respondents No.2 to 8 in the above Second Appeal.

¶18

Mr.C.Prakasam, learned counsel for the respondents 2 to 4 would submit that he has no objection in allowing these present Petitions.

¶19

3. Heard both sides.

¶20

Considering the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of these Miscellaneous Petitions and also taking into consideration that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 has no objection in allowing the present petitions and being satisfied with the same, these Miscellaneous Petitions are ordered as prayed for.

Gba

23.01.2025

(2/2)

Note: Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments to the cause title.

¶25

Page No. 2 of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis