Madras High CourtCMP/9036/2020allowed

Rajasekar v. S.Subburayan,

2024-06-27Honourable Mr Justice Battu Devanand3 pages

C.M.P. Nos. 9036, 9038 of 2020, 14265, 14267, 14268 14270, 14271 & 14274 of 2024 in C.R.P. No. 1435 of 2012 BATTU DEVANAND, J.

This case is listed today under the caption 'for clarification'.

2. It is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel appearing on either side that, as on the date of the disposal of the Civil Revision Petition i.e., on 24.06.2024, C.M.P. Nos. 9036 and 9038 of 2020 are not ordered.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that C.M.P. Nos. 9036 and 9038 of 2020 are filed to restore the dismissal order passed against the fifth and sixth respondents as abated, in connection with this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The remaining CMPs are filed (i) C.M.P. No.14265 of 2024 is filed seeking to condone the delay of 1131 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused to the death of the sixth respondent, (ii) C.M.P. No. 14267 of 2024 is filed seeking to set aside the abatement caused to the death of the sixth respondent, (iii) C.M.P. No. 14268 of 2024 is filed to condone the delay of 1131 days in filing the petition to set aside the abatement caused due to the death of the fifth respondent, (iv) C.M.P. No. 14270 of 2024 is filed seeking to set aside the abatement caused to the death of the fifth respondent, (v) C.M.P. No.14271 of 2024 is filed seeking to bring on record the 1/3

proposed respondents as respondents 18 to 22 being the legal heirs of the deceased sixth respondent and (vi) C.M.P. No. 14274 of 2024 is filed seeking to bring on record the proposed respondents as respondents 13 to 17 being the legal heirs of the deceased fifth respondent.

5. It is noted that the above CMPs are inadvertently allowed subsequent to the disposal of the main Civil Revision Petition.

6. In view of the same, to rectify the mistake, this Court inclined to recall the order dated 24.06.2024 in main CRP and order dated 27.06.2024 in all CMPs to pass fresh orders. Accordingly, these orders are recalled.

7. All these CMPs mentioned above are heard on both side.

8. Having satisfied with the reasons stated by the learned counsel and on consideration of the averments made in the accompanying affidavits, this Court satisfied to allow all CMPs in the interest of justice.

9. Accordingly, all CMPs are hereby allowed.

20.09.2024 AT 2/3

BATTU DEVANAND, J.

AT C.M.P. Nos. 9036, 9038 of 2020, 14265, 14267, 14268, 14270, 14271 & 14274 of 2024 in C.R.P. No. 1435 of 2012 20.09.2024 3/3