Madras High Court
Srinivasan (Died) vs Dr.Jeyaram on 23 June, 2025
Author: B.Pugalendhi
Bench: B.Pugalendhi
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
CMP(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
in
CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015
1.Srinivasan (Died)
2.Suja Krishna
3.S.R.Sumedha Vallee
4.S.R.Senthil Vas Narayanan
5.S.R.Sylaja Vallee Narayan
6.S.R.Sarravana Vas Narayanan
7.S.R.Sobhana Vallee Narayan
8.S.R.Sree Vas Narayanan ...Proposed
Petitioners/ legal heirs of
Revision petitioner, Srinivasan
Vs.
Dr.Jeyaram ... Respondent
Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Petitions are filed under Order
9 Rule 9 of Civil Procedure Code and under Order 22 Rule 3 of Civil
Procedure Code, to set aside the order, dated 21.06.2022, passed by
this Court in CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015 and to restore the civil
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
revision petition and to being on record the petitioners 2 to 8, the legal
representatives of the deceased petitioner respectively.
For Petitioners : Mrs.J.Anandhavalli
For Respondent : Mr.Brijesh Kishore
COMMON ORDER
These Civil Miscellaneous petitions were filed by the legal
heirs of one Srinivasan, who is the petitioner in CRP(MD) No.2130 of
2015, which was filed as against the fair and decreetal order passed by
the learned Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in E.P.No.21 of
2015 in O.S.No.501 of 2000, dated 07.08.2015. The Civil Revision
Petition filed by the defendant Srinivasan in CRP(MD) No.2130 of
2015 was dismissed by this Court on 21.06.2022, considering the
judgment and decree passed by this Court in SA(MD) Nos.679, 988 of
2006, dated 04.04.2014 and the manner in which, the revision
petitioner /tenant has protracted the proceedings.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these
Civil Miscellaneous Applications were filed on 14.12.2022 that the
revision petitioner, Srinivasan died on 30.07.2021, however it was not
informed by the legal heirs of Srinivasan, before this Court, when the
Civil Revision Petition was listed for hearing. Therefore, according to
the petitioners, the order passed as against a dead person is of nullity,
and accordingly, the order passed by this Court in CRP(MD) No.2130
of 2015, dated 21.06.2022 has to be set aside and restored.
3.In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, this Court has directed the Registry to list these
applications along with the order passed in CRP(MD) No.2130 of
2015, dated 21.06.2022. Accordingly, on the order of the Honourable
Administrative Judge, these applications are listed before this Court on
24.02.2025 along with the Civil Revision Petition.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that the revision petitioner Srinivasan died on 30.07.2021 and on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
date of disposal of CRP(MD) No.2130 of 2015, on 21.06.2022, the
revision petitioner was no more, therefore, the order passed by this
Court as against the dead person, in the above Civil Revision Petition
is of nullity and accordingly, it has to be necessarily set aside and
restored for further hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by
referring to Order 22 Rule 10(A) of Civil Procedure Code submits that
the above provision mandates the Pleader appearing for a party in a
suit must inform the Court about the death of that party. According to
the learned counsel, the revision petition was taken up for hearing only
on 14.06.2022, after four years from the last posting date 20.07.2016
and therefore, she could not get proper instructions, within a week.
The learned counsel further submits that the respondent was aware of
the death of the revision petitioner, however, he has failed to inform
the same to the Court. However, the learned counsel admitted in her
written submissions that without knowing the death of the revision
petitioner, she has argued the matter since the revision petition was
listed under the caption for orders.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
5.The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the
legal heirs of the deceased Srinivasan have intentionally not informed
the Court about the death of their father in order to drag on the
proceedings further. However, according to him, the revision
petitioner died on 30.07.2021. The revision petition was filed by the
defendant in O.S.No.501 of 2000, as against the order of delivery
passed by the Execution Court in the execution proceedings initiated
in the year 2015. The learned counsel for judgment
debtor/petitioners/legal heirs of the Revision petitioner has filed a
memo, before the Execution Court on 05.10.2021 informing the
respondent/decree holder about the death of the revision petitioner on
30.07.2021. The decree holder has also filed EA No.1 of 2021 before
the Execution Court, to implead these petitioners/legal heirs of the
deceased judgment debtor. Therefore, the onus cannot be shifted to the
respondent/decree holder that he ought to have informed the death of
the revision petitioner, even though the petitioners/legal heirs of the
judgment debtor themselves have entered appearance through their
counsel in the EP proceedings, which is pending before the Execution
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
Court and also when the execution proceedings are adjourned
periodically by referring the proceedinging in CRP(MD) No. 2130 of
2015 before this Court and they have not filed any application to
implead them as parties in the revision proceedings in time and also
they have failed to inform this Court about the death of the revision
petitioner, when these petitions were listed for hearing before this
Court on 14.06.2022 as well as on 21.06.2022.
6.The learned counsel has also pointed out that the judgment
debtor was a tenant of the vendors of the decree holder and they have
failed to vacate the premises as per their oral instructions at the time of
sale. Therefore, the suit itself was filed for recovery of possession and
for mesne profit. The suit was dismissed on 30.01.2003, however, the
first appeal was allowed in their favour, which was also confirmed by
this Court in Second appeals as early as in the year 2014. Even after
that, the tenant is dragging on the proceedings by challenging the order
passed by the Execution Court for delivery in the year 2015 and
further dragging the proceedings till date. Therefore, according to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
learned counsel, there is no merits in these applications and therefore,
these applications are liable to be dismissed.
7.This Court considered the rival submissions made and also
perused the materials placed on record.
8.The facts of this case are useful to decide this issue that the
respondent/plaintiff had filed the suit in O.S.No.501 of 2000, before
the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, seeking for a decree
for evicting the defendant/petitioner (Srinivasan), from the plaint ''C''
schedule building and for recovery of possession in respect of plaint
''B'' and ''C'' schedule properties and future mesne profits, injunction in
respect of ''A'', ''B'' and ''C'' of plaint schedule properties and other
reliefs. The trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree,
dated 30.01.2003. Aggrieved over the same, the respondent filed
appeal in A.S.No.15 of 2003, before the Subordinate Court,
Kuzhithurai. The learned Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurrai, by a
Judgment and decree dated 17.01.2005, decreed the suit in respect of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
''C'' schedule property for recovery of possession and partly allowed
the relief in respect of ''B'' schedule property and granted a decree of
injunction in favour of the plaintiff in respect of ''A'' schedule
property. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.
15 of 2003, dated 17.01.2005, the defendant filed second appeal before
this Court in S.A.(MD) No.679 of 2006. The plaintiff had also filed a
Second Appeal in SA(MD) No.988 of 2006, in respect of modifying
portion of the judgment and decree and partly dismissing the suit in
respect of ''B'' schedule property. This Court, by its common judgment
and decree, dated 04.04.2014 was pleased to dismiss both the appeals
by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate
Court in A.S.No.15 of 2003, dated 17.01.2005.
9.The plaintiff filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.21 of
2015, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, seeking
for recovery of possession of ''C'' schedule property as per the decree
passed in his favour. The Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, by a
fair and decreetal order, dated 07.08.2015 was pleased to allow the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
petition, directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of
''C'' schedule property. Aggrieved on that, the defendant /Srinivasan
filed the above Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP(MD)
No.2130 of 2015 and the same was disposed of by this Court on
21.06.2022, which is as under:-
“5.It is seen from the records that this Court, while
dismissing the second appeals in SA(MD) Nos.679 & 988 of
2006, has observed that the defendant has to be vacated
from the premises. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with this civil revision petition at this stage, when
the delivery has been ordered by the EP Court.
6.Considering that the issue has been protracted for more
than 20 years, the respondent is at liberty to file necessary
application before the EP Court to take possession of the
property and on filing of such application, the EP Court,
shall dispose it of and ensure that the delivery is effected
within a period of two weeks from the date of such
application. No costs.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
10.After perusal of the available materials, including the
common judgment and decree passed by this Court in SA(MD) Nos.
679 and 988 of 2006, dated 04.04.2014 and after providing sufficient
opportunity of hearing to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
Civil Revision Petition was disposed of by this Court, by its order,
dated 21.06.2022. Now, the proposed petitioners 2 to 8, who are the
legal heirs of the revision petitioner filed the present petitions, to set
aside the order, dated 21.06.2022, passed by this Court in CRP(MD)
No.2130 of 2015 and to bring on record the petitioners 2 to 8, the legal
representatives of the deceased sole petitioner as petitioners 2 to 8 in
the above Civil Revision Petition. It is the duty of the petitioner's
counsel to inform the Court regarding the death of the revision
petitioner, while hearing the revision petition itself. Without doing so,
shifting the blame on the respondent counsel that the respondent ought
to have informed about the death of Srinivasan is not acceptable and it
is only for the purpose of dragging on the execution proceedings
pending before the Execution Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
11.In case of death of a party to the proceedings, a duty is
cast upon the Pleader to communicate the same to the Court and the
Court shall thereupon give notice of such death to the other party.
Order 22 Rule 10(A) of CPC is extracted as under:-
10A. Duty of pleader to communicate to Court death of a party:-
Wherever a pleader appearing for a party to the suit comes to
know of the death of that party, he shall inform the Court about
it, and the Court shall there upon give notice of such death to
the other party, and, for this purpose, the contract between the
pleader and the deceased party shall be deemed to subsist.
The petitioner claims that after 2016, the case was listed for hearing
only on 14.06.2022 and on that date, it was again adjourned to
21.06.2022 under the caption ''for orders''. Therefore, the petitioner's
counsel claims that she was not having sufficient time to get
instructions. However, it is admitted that the death of the petitioner
was informed in the EP proceedings by these petitioners/legal heirs of
the judgment debtor through their counsel by filing a memo on
05.10.2022 and therefore, the respondent/decree holder has also filed
EA 1 of 2021 to implead the legal heirs of the deceased judgment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
debtor. The petitioners/legal heirs of the Judgment debtor were also
impleaded in the execution petition and the execution petition was
pending on account of the proceedings in Civil Revision Petition
before this Court. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that the legal heirs
are not aware of the Civil Revision Petition, which is pending before
this Court, arising out of an order passed by the execution proceedings
in EP No. 21 of 2015 in O.S.No.501 of 2000, dated 07.08.2015.
12.The Honourable Supreme Court in General Manager of
the Raja Durbhunga Vs. Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Sing reported
in (1871-72) 14, Moore's I.A.605, has held as under:-
''the actual difficulties of a litigant in India begin when he as
obtained a decree''.
The Honourable Supreme Court has also held that it must be
remembered that procedure is merely a handmaid of justice and cannot
subvert the course of justice. As noted in Shub Karan Bubna @ Shub
Karan Prasad Bubna Vs. Sita Saran Bubna, reported in 2009 AIR
SCW 6541, the success of a party in a suit means nothing until he gets
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
the actual relief. This will ensure meaningful efficient implementation
of the code. It is important to remember that if a party is not able to
obtain relief within his lifetime, then there is obvious loss of faith,
which is a cornerstone of the judicial system.
13.In yet another judgment, the Honourable Supreme Court
in P.Jesaya (dead) by LRs., Vs. Sub Collector and another, reported
in (2004) 13 SCC 431, has already held as under:-
''3.The only contention taken up in this appeal is that the first
respondent, in the appeal before the High Court, had died
during the pendency of that appeal. It is contended that his
heirs were not brought on record and, therefore, the appeal
before the High Court had abated. In support of this
contention reliance is placed on Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code
of Civil Procedure as well as the Judgments of this Court in
the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh Vs.Annabai Devram
Kini and in the case of Amba Bai Vs Gopal. It is submitted
that as the appeal had abated, the judgment delivered by the
High Court is non est and cannot be enforced.
4.Though the arguments are attractive one must also keep in
mind Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
obligatory on the pleader of a deceased to inform the Court
and the other side about the factum of death of a party. In this
case, we find that no intimation was given to the Court or to
the other side that the first respondent had died. On the
contrary a counsel appeared on behalf of the deceased person
and argued the matter. It is clear that the attempt was to see
whether a favourable order could be obtained. It is clear that
the intention was that if the order went against them, then
thereafter this would be made a ground for having that order
set aside. This is in effect an attempt to take not just the other
side but also the Court for a ride. These sort of tactics must
not be permitted to prevail. We, therefore, see no reason to
interfere. The appeal stands dismissed. There will be no order
as to the costs.''
14.Following the above cited judgments of the Honourable
Supreme Court, this Court has passed an order in a similar proceedings
in N.Kamatchi Mudaliar and others, Vs.A.Pankajam, Review
Application No.10 of 2020 in CMP No.833 of 2020 in S.A.No.1076 of
1992, wherein, this Court has held as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
''11. In the decision in P. Jesaya by Lrs vs. Sub-Collector and
another cited supra, it has been held thus.
3. The only contention taken up in this appeal is
that the first respondent, in the appeal before the High Court,
had died during the pendency of that appeal. It is contended
that his heirs were not brought on record and, therefore, the
appeal before the High Court had abated. In support of this
contention reliance is placed on Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code
of Civil Procedure as well as the judgments of this Court in
the case of Mithailal Dalsangar Singh v. Annabai Devram
Kini [(2003) 10 SCC 691] and in the case of Amba Bai v.
Gopal [(2001) 5 SCC 570] . It is submitted that as the appeal
had abated, the judgment delivered by the High Court is non
est and cannot be enforced.
4. Though the arguments are attractive one must
also keep in mind Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. It is obligatory on the pleader of a deceased to
inform the court and the other side about the factum of death
of a party. In this case we find that no intimation was given to
the court or to the other side that the first respondent had
died. On the contrary a counsel appeared on behalf of the
deceased person and argued the matter. It is clear that the
attempt was to see whether a favourable order could be
obtained. It is clear that the intention was that if the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
went against them, then thereafter this would be made a
ground for having that order set aside. This is in effect an
attempt to take not just the other side but also the court for a
ride. These sort of tactics must not be permitted to prevail.
We, therefore, see no reason to interfere. The appeal stands
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.''
In the decision in C. Manoharan vs. C.V. Subramaniam and
others reported in 2006 4 MLJ 898 cited supra, it has been
held thus.
''18. Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the
contesting respondents, drawing my attention to Order 22,
Rule 10-A CPC, supported by a decision of the Apex Court in
P.JESAYA (DEAD) BY LRS. vs. SUBCOLLECTOR AND
ANOTHER [(2004) 13 SCC 431], would submit that the
pleader for the parties not having discharged his duty to
inform the Court and other parties, of the death, and
continued to plead matter, L.Rs. of respondent were bound
and in this view, it should be held, appeal had not abated. In
the case involved in the above decision, a similar situation
like the one in the case on hand had arisen. The Apex Court,
considering the amended provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, under Order 22 Rule 10-A CPC, as well as the
duty of the Pleader, came to the conclusion, that the decree
passed cannot be treated as nullity, even referring the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
decision relied on by the counsel for the appellant in Ambabai
case. Therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Apex Court
in P.Jesaya case, it is to be held, that the decree passed in
A.S.No.59 of 1993 is binding upon the L.Rs. of the first
plaintiff also and the decree cannot be treated as a nullity.
Because of this reason also, as indicated above, in the
grounds of appeal, when appeal is preferred by only the
second plaintiff, it is specifically stated, cause of action
survives and this being the admitted position, even by the
appellant, the submission made by the learned senior counsel
for the appellant, in my considered opinion, is erroneous,
liable to be rejected. Thus holding, the decree in A.S.No.59 of
1993 is valid, now it is to be seen as per the Substantial
Question of Law framed, whether that could be sustained or
not, on merits."
15.In view of the forgoing reasons and discussions, this
Court is not inclined to entertain these petitions. Accordingly, these
Civil Miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.
23.06.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
vrn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
Cmp(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
B.PUGALENDHI, J.,
vrn
Common Order made in
CMP(MD) Nos.381 & 382 of 2023
in
23.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/06/2025 07:11:22 pm )
