Madras High Court
Sulochana vs Thangam on 7 August, 2023
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 07.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
and
C.M.P(MD)No.893 of 2019
1.Sulochana
2.Prakash
3.Brindha
4.Praveen Kumar
5.Sathish Kumar
6.Rajesh ...Petitioners/Respondents/
Defendants
Vs.
Murugesan (Died)
1.Thangam
2.Thilagam
3.Malathi
4.Rajamanickam
5.Suresh
6.Arun ...Respondents/Petitioners/
Proposed Plaintiffs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/5
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated
23.10.2018 in I.A.No.473 of 2018 in O.S.No.132 of 2018 on the file of
the Sub Court, Lalgudi.
For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For R1 to R6 : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed against the order passed
by the Sub Court, Lalgudi in I.A.No.473 of 2018 in O.S.No.132 of 2018,
dated 23.10.2018.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per
the litigative status before the Trial Court. The petitioners herein are the
respondents/defendants and the respondents herein are the
petitioners/proposed plaintiffs before the Court below.
3. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed a suit for partition. When the
suit was pending, the sole plaintiff died on 05.10.2013. Therefore, the
other legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff filed an application to implead
themselves as the plaintiffs. It appears that there was a delay of 889 days
in filing such application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
4. However, the respondents/defendants objected the application
on the ground that the reason assigned in the petition is not believable.
Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application.
5. The Trial Court after considering either side submission has
ultimately allowed the application on payment of cost.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to either side
submissions.
7. The sum and substance of the contention of the respondent is
that delay in impleading the proposed plaintiffs cannot be condoned. It is
a settled principle of law that while impleading the legal representatives,
the Court should not be more hyper technical. Even in the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.Rudrappa vs Shivappa
reported in 2004 12 SCC 253, it has been held that even if there is no
application for delay condonation and set aside the abatement to implead
the legal heirs, prayer for impleading should not be declined. Therefore,
in view of the above settled principle of law, this Court could not find
any justification to interfere with the order of the Court below. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
learned Trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.132 of
2018 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 months
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sn
To
1.The Sub Court,
Lalgudi.
2.The Section Officer
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
C.KUMARAPPAN,J.
SN
C.R.P(MD)No.203 of 2019
07.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
