K.Gurusamy Nadar v. The State
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.11.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
1. K.Gurusamy Nadar
2. S.Kumarasamy Nadar
3. I.Ramasamy Nadar
4. I.Kaniyaiah
5. I.Muthupondi Nadar
6. S.Navaneethakrishna Nadar
7. S.Shanmugaraj Nadar
8. S.Ramasamy Nadar
9. S.Kaniayya Nadar
10. S.Balamurugan
11. M.Thangasamy Nadar
12. M.Ramasamy Nadar
13. M.Krishnasamy Nadar
14. G.Selvaraj Nadar 1/9
15. S.Kannan Nadar
16. S.Hariharan Nadar @ Harikrishnan
17. M.Santhana Nadar
18. M.Arumugasamy Nadar
19. M.Paramasivam
20. A.Krishnasamy Nadar
21. A.Murugaiya Gani Nadar
22. A.Santhanam
23. K.Annamalai Nadar
24. K.Murugaiah Nadar
25. K.Thirumalaisamy Nadar
26. S.Thirumalaisamy Nadar
27. S.Ramasamy Nadar
28. A.Marikani Nadar
29. A.Murugan Nadar
30. A.Kasi Nadar @ Murugan Nadar
31. D.Krishnan Nadar
32. A.Santhana Nadar
33. S.Santhana Nadar 2/9
34. K.Arunagirisamy Nadar
35. M.Ramachandra Nadar
36. P.Shamuganathan Nadar
37. R.Radhakrishnan Nadar
38. R.Saravanan Nadar
39. A.Harikrishnan Nadar
40. A.Santhana Nadar
41. K.Vayanaprakash Nadar
42. K.Chamdrakumar Nadar
43. R.Annamalai Nadar
44. A.Annamalai Pondi Nadar
45. A.Krishnasamy Nadar
46. A.thirumalaisamy Nadar
47. A.Palanisamy Nadar
48. S.Dhanabalakrishnan Nadar
49. S.Ayyakkannu Nadar
50. A.Arunagiriammal
51. A.Sornammal 3/9
52. A.Ranjitham
53. A.Prema
54. A.Parvathy
55. S.Pappathy
56. M.Kuruvammal
57. K.Thirumalai Achi
58. Mariammal
59. M.Bhakkiyalakshmi
60. P.Santhi
61. K.Valliammal
62. R.Narayanavadivu
63. A.Seeniammal
64. S.Saraswathiammal
65. S.Thirumalaikumarasamy
66. A.Danabalakrishnan
67. A.Muthukumar
68. A.Selvam
69. A.Iyyangkannu Nadar
70. M.Radhakrishnan 4/9
71. M.Arjunan
72. K.Chelladurai
73. S.Thirumalaikumar
74. S.Krishnammal
75. Krishna Nadar
76. Moniga Susi
77. R.Krishnaveni
78. K.Kannan
79. K.Selvam
80. K.Manikandan
81. K.Iyyankanu ...Petitioners Vs.
1. The State rep by The District Collector Office of the District Collector, Thirunelveli District.
2. The Tahsildar, O/o.Taluk Office Kadayanallore Taluk, Thirunelveli District.
3. S.Pitchandi
4. The commissioner, 5/9
O/o.Thiruvannamalai Municipality, Thiruvannamalai District. ...Respondents PRAYER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of return in I.A.SR.No.955 of 2022 in O.S.No.10 of 2018 dated 16.09.2022, on the file of learned Additional District Judge , Tiruvannamalai and consequently direct to number the IA. For Petitioners : Mr.M.Devaraj
ORDER
Challenging the impugned docket order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, in I.A.SR.No.955 of 2022 in O.S.No.10 of 2018.
2. Before the trial Court, the revision petitioners filed an application by invoking Order 9 Rule 9 prayed to restore the suit in O.S.No.10 of 2018 which was dismissed for default on 07.07.2022. The said application was returned by the trial Judge, held that some of the legal heirs i.e., P2, P39, P50 and P74 has not been included and also steps were not taken to implead the legal heirs and also not produced the death certificate of those plaintiffs.
3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that during the 6/9
course of trial PW1 was examined, some of the plaintiffs was died, there was lot of difficulties, the legal heirs have not been impleaded. Therefore, the trial Judge had dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application to restore the suit and the same was dismissed by the trial Judge. He further submitted that the plaintiffs have taken steps to implead the legal heir of the deceased and they want to one more opportunity to implead the legal heirs. Hence, he prayed to allow this petition.
4. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs have filed this Civil Revision Petition before this Court.
5. Admittedly, as rightly pointed by the plaintiffs, at the trial stage proceedings more than 15 plaintiffs, hence some of the legal heirs were not been included. Therefore, if the opportunity is not given to the revision petitioners, their valuable right of defence will be defeated. The order passed by the trial Judge in I.A..SR.No.955 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 is hereby set aside. Hence, this Court directs the trial Court to number the said IA and issue notice to both parties and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7/9
6. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.
7. Registry is directed to return the original IA along with endorsement filed by the revision petitioners.
20.11.2023 Speaking / Non Speaking order Index :Yes/No msrm To
1. The learned Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras T.V.THAMILSELVI.J, 8/9
msrm 20.11.2023 9/9