IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR CRP.No.6194, 6196 & 6198 of 2025 and CMP.No.30541, 30554 & 30558 of 2025

1.Mrs.M.Amirtham

2. Mr.M.Kirubakaran ... Petitioners in all CRP’s Vs.

1. Mr.Thangavelu Mrs.Pavayammal (Died)

2. Mrs. Maragatham Mr.Sengoda Nadar (Died) Mr.Sengoda Nadar (Died)

3. Mr.R.Palanivel

4.Mr.Ramasamy 5.Mr.Kandasamy Mr.Chokkappan(Died)

6.Mr.R.Palanivel

7.Mr.K.Anbu

8.Mrs.Chinnammal 9.Mr.M.Muthusamy

10.Mr.P.Ramesh

11. Mr.K.Lakshmanan 12. Mrs.S.Jothilakshmi

13.Mr.K.Varathappan 14.Mr.R.Jayaprakash

15.Mrs.V.R.Amudavani

16. Mr.D.Elango

17.Mr.B.Gunasekaran

18.Mr.T.N.Mani 19.Mrs.Pavayee

20.Mrs.B.Annapurani 21.Mrs.Kumuthavalli

22.Mr..K.Rajendren

23.Mr.C.Ganeshan

24.Mr.R.M.Annamalai

25.Mr.L.Ramanathan

26 Mrs.S.Arukkani

27.Mr.S.Chinnusamy

28.Mr.P.Eswaramoorthy

29.Mr..Baithkodi 30.Mr.R.Rajavel

31. Mr.M.Krishnavel

32.Mr.T.Dineshkumar

33.Mr.S.Vinoth

34.Mrs.S.Jothi ...Respondents in all CRP’s

35.Mr.S.Kamaraj ...Respondent/proposed party in CRP.No.6194/ 2025 35.Mr.S.M.Sundararajan ...Respondent/proposed party in CRP.No.6196/ 2025

35.Mr.Murugesan

36.Mr.Palanivel ...Respondents/proposed parties in CRP.No.6198/ 2025 PRAYER in CRP.No.6194 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and Decreetal order dated 16.09.2025 in I.A. No. 2 of 2024 in O.S.No. 522 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

PRAYER in CRP.No.6196 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and Decreetal order dated 16.09.2025 in I.A. No.5 of 2024 in O.S.No. 522 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

PRAYER in CRP.No.6198 of 2025: Civil Revision Petition filed Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and Decreetal order dated 16.09.2025 in I.A. No. 8 of 2024 in O.S.No. 522 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sub Ordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, Namakkal District.

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Gunaseelan in all CRP’s

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision petitions are filed challenging the orders passed by the Trial Court allowing the petitions to condone the delay of 1387, 463, and 1394 days in filing petition to set aside the abatement and to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendants 3, 4 and 8.

2. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for partition. The petitioners have been arrayed as defendant Nos. 22 and 18. Pending suit, the defendants 3, 4 and 8 died. Therefore, the first respondent/plaintiff filed an application to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased defendants 3, 4 and 8. Since the suit was already abated and there was some delay in filing petition to set aside the abatement, the first respondent also filed applications to set aside the abatement and to condone the delay of 1387, 463 and 1394 days in filing petition to set aside the abatement. The trial court allowed the condone delay petitions. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come before this court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first respondent failed to prove that the proposed parties are the legal representatives of the deceased defendants 3, 4 and 8 and he failed to file death certificate. Therefore, the trial court ought not have allowed the applications.

4. The first respondent filed an affidavit stating that the proposed parties are the legal heirs of the defendants 3, 4 and 8. The said assertion made in the affidavit of the first respondent was not at all denied by the petitioners in their affidavit. The petitioners also failed to give any details of other legal representatives of the deceased defendants 3, 4 and 8. Even assuming there are other legal representatives, one legal representative is sufficient to represent the estate of the deceased. Therefore, nothing wrong in allowing the petition to bring on record the proposed parties as legal representatives of the d