Allowed¶25

Sivaraj v. Thevasigamani

Madras HC27 Jan 2026CMP/23982/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay 970 days; CMP No. 23982 of 2025 in S.A.SR.No.56721 of 2025; Second Appeal; partition suit; final decree application objection by respondents 8 to 12; conditional costs of Rs.2000/- each to counsel for R4, R6 and R8-R12; Madras High Court; T.V. Thamilselvi J.; SR numbering subject to compliance; compliance reporting on 13.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 970 days in preferring the Second Appeal condoned, conditional on payment of Rs.2,000/- each to the counsel for respondents 4, 6 and 8 to 12 within ten days; Second Appeal SR to be numbered if otherwise in order subject to compliance; matter posted on 13.02.2026 for reporting compliance. ¶25

Sivaraj Vs Thevasigamani — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

CMP No. 23982 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 27-01-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶6

CMP No. 23982 of 2025 in S.A.SR.No.56721 of 2025

¶7

Sivaraj S/o Veerappagounder, Kollapatti, Manakadavu Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Tiruppur District

¶8

Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

Thevasigamani and 12 others.

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant(s): Mr.Aravind Subramanian Sr Counsel for Mr. MANOJ For Respondent(s): M/s.E.Shobana For Rr8 To 12 M/s.S. Vasavi Sridevi For R6 M/s.W.Camyles Gandhi For R4

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This petition is filed praying to condone the delay of 970 days in

¶15

preferring the above Second Appeal.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to appellant’s

¶17

illness, he could not approach the counsel within the time limit and the delay is

¶18

neither wilful nor wanton.

¶19

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

¶20

CMP No. 23982 of 2025

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 8 to 12 raised objections

¶22

stating that final decree application has already been filed and therefore, delay on the part of the appellants would cause hardship.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for Respondents 4 and 6 although submitted

¶24

that they have no objections for allowing the present petition, submitted that the delay of 970 days is huge.

¶25

Since counsel for respondents 4 and 6 have no objections and the counsel for respondents 8 to 12 raised objections and that the suit is for partition, to avoid further litigations and to settle the issue between the parties, this court is inclined to condone the delay with a condition that counsel for appellant/petitioner shall pay Rs.2000/- to counsel for R4, Rs.2000/- to counsel for R6 and Rs.2000/- to counsel for R8 to R12 within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

The Second Appeal SR is to be numbered, if the same is otherwise in

¶27

order subject to compliance of above condition.

¶28

Post the matter on 13.02.2026 for reporting compliance.

¶29

27-01-2026

¶30

nvsri

¶31

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

¶32

CMP No. 23982 of 2025

¶33

T.V.THAMILSELVI J.

¶34

nvsri

¶35

CMP No. 23982 of 2025 In S.A.SR.No.56721 of 2025

¶36

27-01-2026

¶37

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

Sivaraj v. Thevasigamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaraj v. Thevasigamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendiran(died),1.R.UTHIRA Vs Raman

Chandrammal (Died) 1. K. Umarani Vs Govindasamy

Natarajan Vs Selvi

Thirumoorthy Vs Pavathal

P.Ganesan Vs Parimala

Elumalai Vs Ammaee alias Santhi