Allowed¶20

Paraman v. Karuthakannan (Died), 1.PALANI

Madras HC27 Apr 2026CMP(MD)/11609/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Restoration of application dismissed for non-prosecution; condonation of delay in filing Second Appeal; deceased respondent not a necessary party having sold the property to the contesting respondent; objection of respondents 1 to 3 held unsustainable; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; Justice P.B. Balaji; S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023; C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023; CMP(MD) No. 11609 of 2024; restored to file; listed 08.06.2026.

What did the court decide?

Restoration allowed: the order dated 12.07.2024 in C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 dismissing the delay-condonation application for non-prosecution was set aside and the application in S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023 was restored to file; C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 was directed to be listed for hearing on 08.06.2026. ¶20

Paraman Vs Karuthakannan (Died), 1.PALANI — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.07.2024 dismissing C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 (application to condone delay in filing Second Appeal S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023) for non-prosecution should be set aside and the application restored. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

Although the Second Appeal is yet to be numbered, the Court set aside the order dated 12.07.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 dismissing the condonation application, and restored the application in S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023 to file.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The fourth respondent, who has passed away and who has already sold the property to the contesting respondent, is no longer a necessary party and has no subsisting right, title or interest in the subject matter in dispute.

¶14

Key takeaways

The objection of respondents 1 to 3 to the restoration of the dismissed application is not sustainable.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP(MD) No. 11609 of 2024 (Madurai Bench, P.B. Balaji J.) sought setting aside of the order dated 12.07.2024 in C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 in S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023, by which the application to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 objected to restoration. The Court noted the fourth respondent had passed away with substitution steps still due; holding that he had already sold the property to the contesting respondent, retained no subsisting right, title or interest, and was therefore no longer a necessary party, the Court found the objection unsustainable, set aside the dismissal order despite the Second Appeal remaining unnumbered, restored the application to file, and directed C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 to be listed for hearing on 08.06.2026.

¶1

CMP(MD). No.11609 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 27/04/2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

¶6

CMP(MD). No.11609 of 2024 in CMP(MD).No.17040 of 2023 in SA(MD)SR.No.90941 of 2023

¶7

Paraman 2. Panam @ Panaselvi ... Petitioners Vs 1. Karuthakannan (Died) 1.Palani 2. Annathai 2. K.Mani 3. Muthucharam 3. The Management, M/s. Alagendra Textiles, Theni District. 4. S.K.Sridhar 4. Ochu 5. M.S.V.S. Selvapandian ... Respondents PRAYER :- To set aside the order dated 12-07-2024 passed by this Honourable Court in C.M.P.(MD).No.17040 of 2023 in S.A. (MD).SR.No.90941 of 2023 dated which was dismissed for non prosecution and restore the same. For Petitioners : Mr. G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate For Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr.M. Vijayarathinam

¶8

ORDER 1/3

¶9

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

¶10

CMP(MD). No.11609 of 2024

¶11

This petition has been filed to set aside the order dated 12.07.2024 passed by this Court in C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 in S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, and to restore the same.

¶12

Though the counsel for respondents 1 to 3 objected to the restoration of the Second Appeal which was dismissed for nonprosecution, it is brought to my notice that the 4^th respondent has passed away and necessary steps are due.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the 4^th respondent is only the vendor of the first respondent and has no substantial interest. The petitioners are willing to exclude the 4^th respondent from the proceedings.

¶14

Considering the fact that the 4^th respondent has already sold the property to the contesting respondent, he is no longer a necessary party. He does not have any subsisting right, title, or interest in the subject matter in dispute.

¶15

In light of the above, the objection in this regard is not sustainable. The application to condone the delay in filing the Second Appeal has been filed, and the Second Appeal is yet to be numbered.

¶16

2/3

¶17

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

¶18

CMP(MD). No.11609 of 2024

¶19

In view of the above, and although the Second Appeal is yet to

¶20

be numbered, this Court is inclined to set aside the order dated 12.07.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD) No. 17040 of 2023 dismissing the same, and the application in S.A.(MD) SR No. 90941 of 2023 is restored to file.

¶21