Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
Accordingly, these petitions are allowed without costs
Provisions considered
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 5
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. XXII r. 4
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. On being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions and also considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed without costs. 03.07.2025 avNote: Registry is…
Judgment
CMP.Nos.4168, 4169 & 4171 of 2025 in A.S.No.813 of 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 03.07.2025 CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVELCMP.Nos.4168, 4169 & 4171 of 2025in A.S.No.813 of 2010 K. Arumugam (died)
A.Yasotha2. A.Arunkumar3. S.Suganya ... Petitioners / Proposed Appellants 2 to 4 in all CMPsVs.1. K.Jayaraman ... Respondent / First respondent in all CMPsKrishnaveni (Died)
Jayalakshmi3.Saraswathi ... Respondents / Respondents 3 & 4 in all CMPsDevadass (died)
R.Ponnusamy5. Tmt. Karuppurathinam6. Tmt. Bagiya Lakshmi ... Respondents / Proposed respondents 6 to 8 in all CMPs7. Pushpammal8. Kannan9. Nagendran ... Respondents / Proposed respondents 9 to 11 in all CMPsPage No.1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP.Nos.4168, 4169 & 4171 of 2025 in A.S.No.813 of 2010PRAYER IN CMP.No.4168 of 2025 : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, praying to condone the delay of 4712 days in filing the above petition to set aside abatement caused due to the death of the second respondent, Krishnaveni in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.813 / 2010. PRAYER IN CMP.No.4169 of 2025 : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XXII Rule 9 (2) of CPC 1908, praying to set aside the abatement cause due to the death of the second respondent, Krishnaveni in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.813 of 2010. PRAYER IN CMP.No.4171 of 2025 : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC 1908, praying to bring on record the respondents 4 to 6 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased / the second respondent, Krishnaveni and rank them as the respondents 6 to 8 in the above appeal suit in A.S.No.813 of 2010. For Petitioners : Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy in all CMPsFor Respondents : Mr.P.Raja for R1 to R4 in all CMPsCOMMON ORDERCMP.No.4168 of 2025 has been filed to condone the delay of 4712 days in filing the above petition to set aside abatement caused due to the death of the second respondent, Krishnaveni in the above appeal suit. Page No.2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP.Nos.4168, 4169 & 4171 of 2025 in A.S.No.813 of 20102. CMP.No.4169 of 2025 has been filed to to set aside the abatement cause due to the death of the second respondent, Krishnaveni in the above appeal suit. 3. CMP.No.4171 of 2025 has been filed to bring on record the respondents 4 to 6 herein as the legal representatives of the deceased / the second respondent, Krishnaveni and rank them as the respondents 6 to 8 in the above appeal suit.4. Heard Mr.P.M.Duraiswamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Raja, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.
Operative part
On being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions and also considering the submissions made on either side, this Court is inclined to allow these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are allowed without costs. 03.07.2025 avNote: Registry is directed to carry out necessary amendment in the appeal papers. Page No.3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP.Nos.4168, 4169 & 4171 of 2025 in A.S.No.813 of 2010 R.SAKTHIVEL, J.av CMP.Nos.4168, 4169 & 4171 of 2025in A.S.No.813 of 2010 CMA NOS.423 AND 828 OF 202103 / 07 / 2025(2/7)Page No.4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, these petitions are allowed without costs
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. XXII r. 4.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.