Allowed

Rajmanickam (died) 2. Seethalakshmi, v. Chinnasamy

Madras HC6 Apr 2026CMP(MD)/14028/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed three Civil Miscellaneous Petitions condoning a 477-day delay to set aside abatement due to death and add legal representatives of a deceased respondent in a suspended appeal. Noting no objection from legal respondents and satisfaction with affidavit reasons, the Court allowed the petitions.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Petitions allowing condonation of delay and addition of legal representatives are allowed. Registry directed to amend appeal memorandum.

Rajmanickam (died) 2. Seethalakshmi, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 06-04-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

¶5

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025 IN

¶6

SA(MD) NO. 447 of 2011

1.Rajmanickam (Died)

2.Seethalakshmi

3.Vimal

4.Ramkumar

5.Kalyani

6.Sureshkumar

7.Chitra

8.Minor. Shalini

9.Minor. Kaviya

(Minor Petitioners 8 and 9 are represented by their mother and natural guardian the 7^th petitioner herein)

¶17

Petitioner(s) in all petitions

1.Chinnasamy

1/5

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

¶22

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025

¶23

2.Sreenivasan

¶24

3.Venkataraman

¶25

4.Purasu @ Ramasamy (Died)

¶26

5.Govindasamy

¶27

6.Raju Reddiyar (Died)

¶28

7.Ramajeyam

¶29

8.Ravichandran

¶30

9.Vijaya

¶31

10.Rajammal

¶32

11.Selvanambi

¶33

12.Venkatachalam

¶34

13.Thilaga Rani

¶35

Respondent(s) in all petitions

¶36

For Petitioner(s) in all petitions : Mr.G.Sridharan, Advocate

¶37

For Respondent(s) in all petitions :

¶38

Mr.S.Deenadhayalan,

¶39

Advocate for R1 to R3 & R5

¶40

R4 & R6 – Died

¶41

R10 to R13 – No Appearance

¶42

2/5

¶43

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

¶44

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025

¶45

Common Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Order XXII Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to condone the delay of 477 days in seeking to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 6^th respondent, to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 6^th respondent, and to bring on record the proposed respondents 10 to 13 as the legal representatives of the deceased 6^th respondent, namely Raju Reddiyar, in S.A.(MD) No.447 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

¶46

COMMON ORDER

¶47

These Civil Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed to condone the delay of 477 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 6^th respondent, to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 6^th respondent, and to bring on record the proposed respondents 10 to 13 as the legal representatives of the deceased 6^th respondent, namely Raju Reddiyar, in S.A.(MD)No.447 of 2011 on the file of this Court.

¶48

Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused

¶49

the common affidavit filed in support of these petitions.

¶50

3/5

¶51

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

¶52

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025

¶53

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, & 5 has not

¶54

raised any serious objection to these petitions.

¶55

The names of respondent Nos.10 to 13 have been printed in the

¶56

cause list.

¶57

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit, these

¶58

Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are allowed.

¶59

06-04-2026

¶60

(2/2)

¶61

Note : The Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendments in the appeal memorandum.

¶62

mkn

¶63

4/5

¶64

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

¶65

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025

¶66

P.VADAMALAI, J.

¶67

mkn

¶68

CMP(MD) NOS. 14028, 14029, & 14030 of 2025

¶69

IN SA(MD) NO. 447 of 2011

06.04.2026

(2/2)

5/5

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

Rajmanickam (died) 2. Seethalakshmi, v. Chinnasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajmanickam (died) 2. Seethalakshmi, v. Chinnasamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Branch Manager Vs Saravanakumar

T.Palanivel Vs P.Madhivanan

Stephenson Vs State bank of Trivancore

Meenakshi Vs S.Poongodi

Rajmanickam (died) 2.Seethalakshmi Vs Chinnasamy

Jenova Vs K.Jesukumar