Subulakshmi Vs Kaaliyappagounder — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Subulakshmi Vs Kaaliyappagounder — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court's orders allowing impleadment of the legal heirs of the deceased 3rd respondent (I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025) and allowing reopening of the suit (I.A.No.8 of 2024) call for interference in revision under Article 227, given the plaintiffs' earlier failure to take steps that led to abatement. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the legal heirs were already permitted to be impleaded in the main suit, that permission applies to all interim applications automatically; to avoid multiplicity of proceedings the applications were allowed, and this requires no interference.

Ratio / Principle

No merit is found in these Civil Revision Petitions; the findings rendered by the trial judge in I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025 and I.A.No.8 of 2024 require no interference.

Key takeaways

Both parties are directed to cooperate for the trial proceedings.obiter¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (T.V. Thamilselvi J.), dated 02-03-2026, dismissing C.R.P.No.2499 of 2025 and C.R.P.No.2501 of 2025 (both filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India) against orders of the District Munsif, Dharapuram in O.S.No.222 of 2021 — the order dated 07-03-2025 in I.A.No.9 of 2025 (impleadment of legal heirs of the deceased 3rd respondent, with I.A.No.9 of 2025 also seeking condonation of delay in setting aside abatement) and the order dated 22.08.2024 in I.A.No.8 of 2024 (reopening). The suit had been dismissed as abated after the trial court closed the plaintiffs' application to reopen on 04.10.2023 for want of steps following the 3rd respondent's death; the plaintiffs thereafter obtained impleadment of the legal heirs (I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025) on cost but failed to carry out the amendment, prompting the reopening application. Holding that, the legal heirs having already been permitted to be impleaded in the main suit, the permission extended automatically to all interim applications, and that the allowances avoided multiplicity of proceedings, the court found no merit in either revision, declined to interfere with the trial judge's findings in I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025 and I.A.No.8 of 2024, directed both parties to cooperate for the trial, and dismissed the revisions with no costs, closing the connected CMPs (Nos.14320 and 14323 of 2025).

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two orders of the District Munsif, Dharapuram in O.S.No.222 of 2021: (i) order and decreetal order in I.A.No.9 of 2025 in I.A.No.631 of 2021 in O.S.No.222 of 2021 dated 07-03-2025, challenged in C.R.P.No.2499 of 2025; and (ii) order and Decreetal order in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in I.A.No.631 of 2021 in O.S.No.222 of 2021 dated 22.08.2024, challenged in C.R.P.No.2501 of 2025. Body text refers to the parent application variously as I.A.No.631 of 2021, 2022 and 2024.¶¶25
District Munsif, Dharapuram · 07-03-2025 and 22.08.2024
Prior proceeding
Order challenged in C.R.P.No.2501 of 2025: order and Decreetal order in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in I.A.No.631 of 2021 in O.S.No.222 of 2021 dated 22.08.2024, District Munsif, Dharapuram.¶¶27
Prior proceeding
Trial court closed the plaintiffs' application to reopen (I.A.No.631, printed as 'of 2024' in the body) on 04.10.2023 because the 3rd respondent had died and no steps were taken.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Consequently, pending the suit, the trial judge dismissed the suit as abated for want of steps to implead the legal heirs of the deceased 3rd respondent.¶¶43
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs filed three Interlocutory Applications I.A.Nos.9 to 11 of 2025 to implead the legal heirs of the 3rd respondent; the trial court allowed them.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
Plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.9 of 2025 to condone the delay in setting aside the abatement; respondents objected on the ground of the long delay without reasons.¶¶41
Prior proceeding
After impleadment was permitted, the plaintiffs inadvertently failed to carry out the necessary amendment, and therefore came forward with the application to reopen in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in I.A.No.631 of 2021 in O.S.No. 222 of 2021, which the trial judge considered and allowed.¶¶37
Prior proceeding
Trial judge held the suit is of the year 2021 and, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, inclined to allow the applications on payment of cost; aggrieved over this, the defendants preferred C.R.P.No.2499 of 2025.¶¶41