1. Kandan (Died) 2. Murugaiya vs 1. Kanthari (Died) 2. Alagumalai (Died) 3. S.Pethan — CMP(MD)/18083/2025

Case under U/s 5 Limitation Act Section 1684. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 01st June 2026.

CNR: HCMD011487832025

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

CMP(MD)/89865/2025

Filing Date

16-10-2025

Registration No

CMP(MD)/18083/2025

Registration Date

06-11-2025

Judge

Honourable Ms.Justice R. POORNIMA

Coram

Honourable Ms.Justice R. POORNIMA

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

01st June 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Acts & Sections

U/s 5 Limitation Act Section 1684

Petitioner(s)

1. Kandan (Died) 2. Murugaiya

Adv. K. K. SENTHIL,G.Susiladevi,G.Susiladevi, G.Susiladevi

Murugaiya

Sevathal

Respondent(s)

1. Kanthari (Died) 2. Alagumalai (Died) 3. S.Pethan

Adv. R.SARAVANA PRABHU FOR R10 TO R12 1123

Alagumalai

S.Pethan

Allimuthu

Valli

K.Sekar

K.Selvaraj

Nagammal

A.Elambal

Veeran

Samuthiram

Kannayiram

Kaliyammal

Vairamani

Muthu

Ramesh Kumar

Orders

01-06-2026
Honourable Ms.Justice R. POORNIMA

Case Summary: CMP(MD) Nos. 18083-18085/2025 The Madras High Court allowed applications to condone a 962-day delay in filing to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 1st respondent and to substitute proposed respondents 10-12 as legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The court was satisfied with the reasons provided in the supporting affidavit and noted the opposing counsel failed to file a counter. The Registry was directed to amend the cause title accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CMP(MD) Nos. 18083-18085/2025 The Madras High Court allowed applications to condone a 962-day delay in filing to set aside the abatement caused by the death of the 1st respondent and to substitute proposed respondents 10-12 as legal representatives of the deceased respondent. The court was satisfied with the reasons provided in the supporting affidavit and noted the opposing counsel failed to file a counter. The Registry was directed to amend the cause title accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Explore other courts

Search Another Case