Jothi and Others Vs. Natesan (Died) and Others

Jothi and Others vs Natesan (Died) and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 15, 2015

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1178780

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1178780
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: D. Hariparanthaman
Decided On: Oct 15, 2015
Case Number: C.R.P(PD) No. 3374 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jothi and Others

Respondent

Natesan (Died) and Others

Excerpt

.....legal heirs of the second defendant in o.s.no.164 of 1995 on the file of additional subordinate judge, tindivanam. the details of the suit is not necessary for disposal of this revision petition. the second defendant died on 28.08.2006. there is a delay of 1356 days to bring the legal heirs of the second defendant, the revision petitioners herein are on record. the trial court allowed i.a.no.912 of 2011 in o.s.no.164 of 1995 by an order dated 22.11.2014. this revision petition is against the aforesaid order. 2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial court ought not to have allowed the i.a.no.912 of 2011 in o.s.no.164 of 1999 in condoning the delay to bring the legal heirs on record of the second defendant in the suit. no sufficient reason was given by the respondents/plaintiffs. according to him, the same would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioners. the learned counsel also sought to argue the suit is a previous one. 4. i am not going into the merits of the suit at this stage. in this case, the second defendant died and the revision petitioners being the legal heirs are brought on record. it is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant. hence, i am of the view that for the adjudication of o.s.no.164 of 1995, the legal heirs of second defendant shall be brought on record. the suit is not yet disposed of. hence, i am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial court in condoning the delay to bring the legal heirs on record. in the circumstances, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. no costs. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the decree and judgment passed in I.A.No.912 of 2011 in O.S.No.164 of 1995 dated 21.11.2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam.)

1. The revision petitioners are legal heirs of the second defendant in O.S.No.164 of 1995 on the file of Additional Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam. The details of the suit is not necessary for disposal of this revision petition. The second defendant died on 28.08.2006. There is a delay of 1356 days to bring the legal heirs of the second defendant, the revision petitioners herein are on record. The trial Court allowed I.A.No.912 of 2011 in O.S.No.164 of 1995 by an order dated 22.11.2014. This revision petition is against the aforesaid order.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the trial Court ought not to have allowed the I.A.No.912 of 2011 in O.S.No.164 of 1999 in condoning the delay to bring the legal heirs on record of the second defendant in the suit. No sufficient reason was given by the respondents/plaintiffs. According to him, the same would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioners. The learned counsel also sought to argue the suit is a previous one.

4. I am not going into the merits of the suit at this stage. In this case, the second defendant died and the revision petitioners being the legal heirs are brought on record. It is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the revision petitioners are the legal heirs of the 2^nd defendant. Hence, I am of the view that for the adjudication of O.S.No.164 of 1995, the legal heirs of second defendant shall be brought on record. The suit is not yet disposed of. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court in condoning the delay to bring the legal heirs on record. In the circumstances, the revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2015 Same Parties Jothi and Others vs Natesan (Died) and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge D. Hariparanthaman