Madras High Court · 2010
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
which, it is made clear that the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Since this Court has allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition C.M.P.No.987 of 2010, the other two applications viz., C.M.P.No.988 of 2010 and C.M.P.No.989 of 2010 (to set aside Abatement and to bring on Record) are allowed in the interest of justice without costs.
Judgment
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL CMP.Nos.987 of 2010 :ORDER C.M.P. Nos. 987 to 989 of 2010 in C.M.P. No. 5449 of 2004 in A.S.S.R. No.44481 of 2003 M.VENUGOPAL, J., C.M.P. No. 987 of 2010 in C.M.P. No. 5449 of 2004: The Petitioners/Appellants/Plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying to condone the delay of 1281 days in preferring the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd Respondent viz., Venkataswamy (2nd Defendant) in A.S.S.R.No.44481 of 2003 on the file of this Court. C.M.P. No. 988 of 2010 in C.M.P. No. 5449 of 2004: The Petitioners/Appellants /Plaintiffs have projected the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition praying for issuance of orders to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd Respondent viz., Venkataswamy (2nd Defendant) in A.S.S.R.No.44481 of 2003. C.M.P. No. 989 of 2010 in C.M.P. No. 5449 of 2004: The Petitioners/Appellants /Plaintiffs have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Petition to bring on record the Respondents 5 to 7 as L.Rs of the deceased 2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant as Respondents in A.S.S.R.No.44481 of 2003. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/Appellants/ Plaintiffs the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Defendant viz., Venkataswamy expired on 11.08.2006 and since the Appellant/ Sabha has been maintained by the Joint Receivers, they have come to know of the demise of the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Defendant only during the last week of June 2010 and later they have come to know that the deceased 2nd Respondent has left behind (i)Tmt. Devika Ammal (Wife), (ii)Sivaranjani (Daughter) and (iii)Vaishnavi (Daughter) as Legal heirs and in this process there has occasioned a delay of 1281 days in preferring the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the 2nd Respondent.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1, 3 to 7 has not filed counter to the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. But the Learned Counsel appearing for them has made an endorsement in C.M.P.No.987 of 2010 that 'This application may be allowed on terms'.
Operative part
Taking note of the fact that the Petitioners/Appellants/ Plaintiffs are Joint Receivers of the Appellant/ Sabha and inasmuch as they have come to know of the death of the 2nd Respondent only during the last week of June 2010 and later after making enquiry they have come to know that the deceased 2nd Respondent has left behind (i)Tmt. Devika Ammal (Wife), (ii)Sivaranjani (Daughter) and (iii)Vaishnavi (Daughter) as legal heirs, this Court on subjectively being satisfied as to the reason ascribed in the affidavit for the said delay, allows the C.M.P. No.987 of 2010 in the interest of justice by directing the Petitioners/Appellants /Plaintiffs to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1, 3 to 7 directly either through Cheque or Demand Draft within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, failing which, it is made clear that the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.
Since this Court has allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition C.M.P.No.987 of 2010, the other two applications viz., C.M.P.No.988 of 2010 and C.M.P.No.989 of 2010 (to set aside Abatement and to bring on Record) are allowed in the interest of justice without costs.
22.10.2010 Index : Yes Internet : Yes M.VENUGOPAL, J., C.M.P. Nos. 987 to 989 of 2010 in C.M.P. No. 5449 of 2004 in A.S.S.R. No.44481 of 2003
22.10.2010
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: which, it is made clear that the petition shall stand dismissed automatically without any further
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 22 Oct 2010. The bench was M VENUGOPAL.
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.