Dismissed¶39

Karunanidhi (Died), 1.Govindan v. Thamizharasi

Madras HC3 Jun 2026CMP/3958/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 678 days; Section 5 Limitation Act 1963; restoration of Second Appeal S.A.No.352 of 2006; CMP.No.3958 of 2024; Madras High Court; dismissal for non-filing of batta memo; automatic dismissal clause in daily order dated 01.04.2026; notice/RPAD; Ulundurpet Taluk, Villupuram District (Kattu Edayar Village); parties Karunanidhi (Died) and legal representatives (Govindhan, Murugan, Viruthambal, Sathya, Nithya, Kavitha, Purushothaman) versus Tamizharasi, Malarmangai, Purushothaman; counsel Mr.S.Ramachandran.

What did the court decide?

None - petition dismissed with no order as to costs ¶39

Karunanidhi (Died), 1.Govindan Vs Thamizharasi — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.06.2026

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL

¶4

CMP.No.3958 of 2024 in S.A.No. 352 of 2006

¶5

Karunanidhi (Died)

¶6

1.Govindhan

¶7

2.Murugan

¶8

3.Viruthambal

¶9

4.Sathya

¶10

5.Nithya (Minor)

¶11

6.Kavitha (Minor)

¶12

7.Purushothaman (Minor) Minor Represented by mother and guardian Viruthambal All are residing at Kattu Edayar Village, Ulundurpet Taluk Villupuram District.

¶13

….Petitioners/Appellants

¶14

Versus

¶15

1.Tamizharasi Kattu Edayar Village, Ulundurpet Taluk Villupuram District.

¶16

2.Malarmangai Represented by mother and guardian Viruthambal Kattu Edayar Village, Ulundurpet Taluk Villupuram District.

¶17

Page Nos.1/4

¶18

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

¶19

3.Purushothaman (Minor) Represented by mother and guardian Viruthambal Kattu Edayar Village, Ulundurpet Taluk Villupuram District.

¶20

...Respondents/Respondents

¶21

Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 praying to condone the delay of 678 days in filing the application to restore the Second Appeal.

¶22

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Ramachandran

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Mr.S.Ramachandran, Counsel on record for the Petitioners is before the

¶25

Court.

¶26

2.The daily order dated April 1, 2026 which reads thus:-

¶27

“No representation for the Petitioners.

¶28

2.Daily order dated April 17, 2025 reads thus:

¶29

Issue notice to the respondents through Court returnable by 09.07.2025. Private notice is also permitted.

¶30

Post the matter on 09.07.2025.

¶31

3.Despite sufficient opportunities given, the Petitioner(s) did not file Batta. With a view to adhere the principles of natural justice fully and in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to issue fresh notice to the Respondents through Court as well as Post returnable by 03.06.2026. In addition, private notice with RPAD is permitted.

¶32

Page Nos.2/4

¶33

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

¶34

4.The Petitioners shall file a proper Batta Memo within seven working days from today, failing which, this petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.

¶35

5.List the matter on 03.06.2026”.

¶36

3.Despite specific order dated April 1, 2026, the petitioners did not file any proper batta memo.

¶37

4.Today’s Cause List which reads thus:

¶38

“Batta with petition & Affidavit copies not filed Reg., R1 to R3 (Through Court & Post). Batta Not filed Reg., R1 to R3 within 7 working days from Court order dated 01.04.2026 ”.

¶39

5.Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

03.06.2026

MSM

Page Nos.3/4

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

¶44

R.SAKTHIVEL, J

¶45

MSM