Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

M.a.Makbul (Died) Vs M.a.Ummar — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Madras HC
2026
M.a.Makbul (Died) Vs M.a.UmmarM.a.Makbul (Died) v. M.a.Ummar

Allowed¶5

M.a.Makbul (Died) v. M.a.Ummar

Madras HC6 Mar 2026CMP/3813/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court common order (R. Sakthivel J, 06.03.2026) allowing CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023 in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001: condonation of 2467 days' delay, setting aside of abatement caused by death of first respondent M.A. Ummar, and impleading of proposed respondents 4 to 9 as his legal representatives; Section 5 Limitation Act; Order XXII Rules 9(2), (4) and 11 CPC; unopposed petitions (proposed LRs served but absent); R2 Abdul Bashe given up 27.02.2023; registry to amend main appeal; next listing 24.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside abatement condoned; abatement caused by the death of the first respondent M.A. Ummar set aside; proposed respondents 4 to 9 brought on record as his legal representatives and ranked as Respondents 4 to 9 in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001; Registry directed to amend the main Second Appeal; matter listed on 24.03.2026.

Why is it important?

The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023 is satisfied; hence all three petitions are allowed. ¶5

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside abatement condoned; abatement caused by the death of the first respondent M.A. Ummar set aside; proposed respondents 4 to 9 brought on record as his legal representatives and ranked as Respondents 4 to 9 in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001; Registry directed to amend the main Second Appeal; matter listed on 24.03.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first respondent in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001 should be condoned (CMP.No. 3813 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act). +2 more

Ratio / Principle

The reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023 is satisfied; hence all three petitions are allowed.

Key takeaways

Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the main Second Appeal (S.A. No. 1764 of 2001) at the next listing.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Sakthivel) - Common order dated 06.03.2026 allowing CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023 in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001: (i) delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside abatement condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act; (ii) abatement caused by the death of the first respondent M.A. Ummar during pendency of the second appeal set aside under Order XXII Rule 9(2) CPC; (iii) proposed Respondents 4 to 9 (Shabeer, Basheer, Rizwan, Sharmila, Faridha, Shamim) brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent under Order XXII Rule (4) r/w Rule 11 CPC. Notice was served on proposed Respondents 4 to 9 but they did not appear or contest; the reason stated in the supporting affidavit was held satisfied. Second respondent Abdul Bashe had earlier been given up vide Court order dated 27.02.2023. Registry directed to carry out necessary amendment in the main second appeal; matter listed on 24.03.2026.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023

in

S.A. No. 1764 of 2001

M.A.Makbul (died)

1.Pyrose

2.Sathu

3.Jarun

4.Jasmine

5.Sathik Basha

6.Yasmin

...Petitioners in all three petitions

Versus

1.M.A. Ummar (Deceased)

2.Abdul Bashe

(R2-Given up vide Court order dated 27.02.2023 made in S.A.No. 1764/2001 in CMP.Nos.3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023).

3.Dhanapal Raj

4.Shabeer

5.Basheer

6.Rizwan

7.Sharmila

8.Faridha

9.Shamim ...Respondents in all three petitions

1/4

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

Prayer:

CMP.No. 3813 of 2023 is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1^st respondent in the above second appeal.

CMP.No. 3815 of 2023 is filed under Order XXII Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1^st respondent in the above second appeal.

CMP.No. 3817 of 2023 is filed under Order XXII Rule (4) r/w Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to bring on record the proposed respondents 4 to 9 as the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent M.A.Ummar respectively and rank them as Respondents 4 to 9 in the above second appeal in S.A.No. 1764 of 2001.

COMMON ORDER

Ms.Seethalakshmi, representing Mr.L.Palanimuthu, learned Counsel on record for the petitioners is before this Court.

2.These petitions have been filed seeking to condone the delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused to the death of the first respondent, namely, M.A.Ummar; and to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 1^st respondent in the above appeal and to bring on record the proposed respondents 4 to 9 as the legal representatives of the deceased 1^st respondent viz., M.A.Ummar.

2/4

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

3.Notice was served on the Proposed Respondent Nos.4 to 9 and they

have been shown in the cause list as Respondent Nos.4 to 9. Despite names

printed in the cause list, they did not choose to appear before this Court and contest these petitions.

This Court has perused the case file.

5.Reason stated in the affidavit filed in support of these petitions is

satisfied. Hence, these petitions are allowed.

6.Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the main

Second Appeal in the next listing date.

7.List the matter on 24.03.2026.

06.03.2026

MSM

3/4

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

R.SAKTHIVEL, J

MSM

CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 & 3817 of 2023 in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001

06.03.2026

4/4

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

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the delay of 2467 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the first respondent in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001 should be condoned (CMP.No. 3813 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act).¶29
2.
Whether the abatement caused due to the death of the first respondent in the second appeal should be set aside (CMP.No. 3815 of 2023 under Order XXII Rule 9(2) CPC).¶30
3.
Whether proposed respondents 4 to 9 should be brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent M.A.Ummar and ranked as Respondents 4 to 9 in S.A. No. 1764 of 2001 (CMP.No. 3817 of 2023 under Order XXII Rule (4) r/w Rule 11 CPC).¶31

Statutes considered

3 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Limitation ActSection 5¶29
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XXII Rule 9(2)¶30 Order XXII Rule (4) r/w Rule 11¶31

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Three civil miscellaneous petitions (CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023) filed in pending Second Appeal S.A. No. 1764 of 2001 before the Madras High Court.¶4-6
Prior proceeding
Death of the first respondent M.A. Ummar during pendency of the second appeal caused abatement; the petitions sought condonation of 2467 days' delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, setting aside of the abatement, and bringing proposed respondents 4 to 9 on record as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent.¶34
Prior proceeding
Second respondent Abdul Bashe was given up vide Court order dated 27.02.2023 made in S.A.No. 1764/2001 in CMP.Nos.3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023.¶18
Prior proceeding
Notice was served on proposed Respondents 4 to 9 and they were shown in the cause list as Respondent Nos.4 to 9.¶37-38
Prior proceeding
Despite being printed in the cause list, proposed Respondents 4 to 9 did not choose to appear before the Court or contest the petitions.¶38-39

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
M.A.Makbul (died)¶7
Ms.Seethalakshmi, Mr.L.Palanimuthu
petitioner
Pyrose, Sathu, Jarun, Jasmine, Sathik Basha, Yasmin (Petitioners in all three petitions)¶8-14
Ms.Seethalakshmi, Mr.L.Palanimuthu
respondent
M.A. Ummar (Deceased)¶16
respondent
Abdul Bashe (R2 - given up vide Court order dated 27.02.2023)¶17-18
respondent
Dhanapal Raj, Shabeer, Basheer, Rizwan, Sharmila, Faridha, Shamim (Respondents 3 to 9)¶19-25

Coram

AI extract

R.SAKTHIVELauthor¶3

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 6 Mar 2026 · March
Registered: 21 Feb 2023
Case no.: CMP/3813/2023
CNR: HCMA010266262023
Bench: R.sakthivel
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: CMP

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from R.sakthivel

Mohamed Haja Moideen Vs Lakshminathan
5 Mar 2026
K.Eswaran Vs S.Janakiraman
5 Mar 2026
Devaraj Vs Natarajan
5 Mar 2026
Minor Sakthivel Vs Chakravarthy
6 Mar 2026
Aparanji Ammal (Since Died) 1. B.Seshadri Vs R.Jayaraman
11 Mar 2026
N.Krishnamurthi Vs R.v.Mani,O.K.Films
11 Mar 2026

Cite this judgement

M.a.Makbul (Died) v. M.a.Ummar, CMP/3813/2023 (MAD), decided on 6 March 2026.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes3

Limitation ActSection 5
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order XXII Rule 9(2) · Order XXII Rule (4) r/w Rule 11

View all statutes

Procedural history5

Three civil miscellaneous petitions (CMP.Nos. 3813, 3815 and 3817 of 2023) filed in pending Second Appeal S.A. No. 1764 of 2001 before the Madras High Court.
Death of the first respondent M.A. Ummar during pendency of the second appeal caused abatement; the petitions sought condonation of 2467 days' delay in filing the petition to set aside the abatement, setting aside of the abatement, and bringing proposed respondents 4 to 9 on record as the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent.

View full history

Bench / Coram

R.SAKTHIVEL

Parties & counsel