Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- C V KARTHIKEYAN
Outcome
Allowed
In view of all these reasons, all the three petitions are allowed
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of all these reasons, all the three petitions are allowed.
Judgment
C.M.P.Nos.31660, 31657 and 31653 of 2025in A.S.No.37 of 2013& A.S.No.172 of 2013 C.M.P.Nos.31660, 31657 and 31653 of 2025inA.S.No.37 of 2013&A.S.No.172 of 2013C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,ANDK.RAJASEKAR.J.,(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,)These three petitions have been filed consequent to the death of first respondent in A.S.No. 37 of 2013 viz., CT.S.Chidambaram, who is the second respondent in A.S.No.172 of 2013.
Notice had been directed in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions. It is contended that notices have been served, but, however, we would not hold up the petitions any further but allow these petitions and direct fresh notice for the newly impleaded parties in the first appeal.
The suit had been filed seeking specific performance of a sale agreement. Appellant in A.S.No.37 of 2013 is the plaintiff in the suit.
Heard the learned counsel for the respondent also.
Operative part
In view of all these reasons, all the three petitions are allowed.
Registry is directed to carry out necessary and consequential amendments in the cause title in A.S.No.37 of 2013 reflecting the death of the first respondent CT.S.Chidambaram and bringing on record the legal representatives of the first respondent.1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.P.Nos.31660, 31657 and 31653 of 2025in A.S.No.37 of 2013& A.S.No.172 of 2013 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,ANDK.RAJASEKAR.J.,gpa7. Fresh notice to the respondents in the appeal suit in A.S.No.37 of 2013 returnable by 27.04.2026.Steps to be taken for the deceased second respondent in A.S.No.172 of 2013.[C.V.K.,J.] [K.R.S.,J.]30.03.2026gpa C.M.P.Nos.31660, 31657 and 31653 of 2025inA.S.No.37 of 2013&A.S.No.172 of 20132/2
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.