Karunanidhi v. Thirunavukkarasu (Died) 1.Gunasundari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR and C.M.P.No.26162 of 2025 CRP.No.5187 of 2025 Karunanidhi, S/o.Chinnakannu ... Petitioner Vs.
Thirunavukkarasu(Died)
1. Gunasundari
2. Lakshmiprathibha
3. Vijayaperumal Anbalagan
4. Arunachalam Pugazhendi (Died)
5. The Athiyandhal Village Panchayath, Rep. by its President, Athiyandhal Village, TiruvannamalaiTaluk and District.
6. The Sub Registrar - II, Sub Registrar Office, ... Respondents CRP.No.5190 of 2025 1/8
Karunanidhi, S/o.Chinnakannu ... Petitioner Vs.
Thirunavukkarasu(Died)
1. Gunasundari
2. Lakshmiprathibha
3. Vijayaperumal Anbalagan
4. Arunachalam Pugazhendhi (Died)
5. The Athiyandhal Village Panchayath, Rep. by its President, Athiyandhal Village, TiruvannamalaiTaluk and District.
6. The Commissioner, Panchayath Union, Block Development Office,
7. The Sub Registrar - II, Sub Registrar Office,
8. Parimala
9. Balaguru ... Respondents CRP.No.5191 of 2025 2/8
Karunanidhi, S/o.Chinnakannu ... Petitioner Vs.
Thirunavukkarasu(Died)
1. Gunasundari
2. Lakshmiprathibha
3. Vijayaperumal Anbalagan
4. Arunachalam Pugazhendhi (Died)
5. The Athiyandhal Village Panchayath, Rep. by its President, Athiyandhal Village, TiruvannamalaiTaluk and District.
6. The Commissioner, Panchayath Union, Block Development Office,
7. The Sub Registrar - II, Sub Registrar Office,
8. Parimala
9. Balaguru
10. Jesiga
11. Balamurugan
12. Sundarambal ... Respondents 3/8
COMMON PRAYER: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 02.07.2025 made in I.A.Nos.2, 5 and 8 of 2024 in O.S.No.94 of 2012 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj [in all CRPs.] For Respondent : Mr.A.Anandan [in all CRPs.] Government Advocate [R5 to R7] ****** COMMON
ORDER
These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Court below allowing the applications filed by the respondents 1 to 3 /legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff to condone the delay of 1055 days, 2506 days and 1815 days respectively in filing the petitions to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff, first defendant and fourth defendant.
2. It is seen from the typed set of papers, the husband of the first 4/8
respondent and father of the respondents 2 and 3 viz., Thirunavukkarasu filed a suit for bare injunction against the petitioner and respondents 4 to 7 in O.S.No.94 of 2012.
3. When the said suit was pending, the sole plaintiff Thirunavukarasu died on 03.05.2021 leaving behind his wife and children viz., respondents 1 to 3 as his surviving legal heirs. However, no steps have been taken to bring on record the legal heirs immediately. Likewise, the first defendant in the suit died on 13.05.2017 leaving behind one Parimala and Balagur as his legal heirs. The fourth defendant in the suit was died on 17.05.2019 leaving behind Jesiga and Balamurugan as his legal representatives. No steps have been taken immediately and petitions have been filed with a delay. Hence, necessary applications have been filed to condone the delay in filing the legal heir application along with other application.
4. In the affidavit filing in support of the condone delay petition, it 5/8
was stated by the respondents 1 to 3/legal heirs of the deceased sole plaintiff that fact of pendency of the suit was not within their knowledge and the same came to their knowledge only when they opened the locker of the deceased plaintiff. It is further stated that immediately steps have been taken and necessary applications have been filed, however with a delay in filing the legal heir application.
5. It is seen from the impugned order, the suit has not been called in open court from 17.11.2014 to 15.07.2025 and necessary actions have been initiated against the concerned Court staff. In such circumstances, the reason adduced by the respondents 1 to 3/ legal representatives of the deceased sole plaintiff that the pendency of the suit was not within their knowledge and hence, there was delay in filing the necessary applications is reasonable.
6. The Trail Court taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, rightly adopted the liberal approach and 6/8
condoned the delay.
S.SOUNTHAR,J.
mp Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Court below and accordingly, all these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.10.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking : Yes/No Index : Yes / No mp To
1. The Additional District Munsif Court, 7/8
2. V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
8/8