P.Periasamy v. Nachimuthu Gounder,

C.M.P.Nos.4872, 4872 & 4876 of 2022 C.M.P.Nos.4004, 4026 & 4045 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.4869, 4872 & 4876 of 2022 in S.A.No.893 of 2004 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The first three applications have been filed consequent to the death of the sole appellant viz., P.Periyasamy and to bring on record his legal representatives, as the appellants 2 to 4. There had been a delay and therefore an appeal had also been abated.

2.In the affidavit filed, it had been stated that apart from the sole appellant, 3rd respondent had also died which necessitated to bring on record the legal representatives. It had been stated that in this process there was a delay and it had been stated that the delay is neither willful nor wanton.

3.Heard the learned counsel for the respondents, who had entered appearance on behalf of the legal representatives of the 3rd respondent. 4.The Second Appeal had been admitted and substantial questions of law had been framed. It is only appropriate that the Court should answer the said substantial questions of law.

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.M.P.Nos.4872, 4872 & 4876 of 2022 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

ssi 5.In view of that particular view, these petitions are allowed. Registry may carry out necessary amendments indicating the death of the sole appellant, indicating the death of the 1st respondent and also indicating the death of the 3rd respondent and bringing on record the proposed legal representatives in accordance with the name as stated in the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions.

15.07.2022 (1⁄2) ssi C.M.P.Nos.4004, 4026 & 4045 of 2022 and C.M.P.Nos.4869, 4872 & 4876 of 2022 in S.A.No.893 of 2004 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis