Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 14176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J
G.Govinda Gramani – Appellant
Versus
Manickkammal – Respondent
A.S.No.5 of 2005 | O.S.No.1201 of 1996
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.E.Durai Vaiyapuri for Mr.M.P.Rajavelayutham
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Muthukumar
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Appeal
Headnote
Findings of Court:
The court found that the second appeal stood abated due to no representative being brought forth.
Issues: The main question framed was whether the second appeal could proceed post the appellant's demise.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that abatement occurs automatically under law when no legal representatives are substituted in a timely manner.
Result: The second appeal is dismissed as abated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. notice of appellant's death (Para 1) |
| 2. delay in substituting legal representatives (Para 2) |
| 3. abatement due to no representatives (Para 3) |
| 4. dismissal of appeal (Para 4) |
ORDER
As early as on 11.03.2025, it was brought to the notice of this court that the sole appellant was no more. Hence, the matter was adjourned from time to time for bringing on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant. After a lapse of more than a year also, no steps have been taken as on date.
2. From the record, it is noticed that the present second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution once on 02.09.2014 and the same was restored on 31.01.2025.
3. Taking note of the fact that the sole appellant passed away long back and no steps have been taken, by operation of law, the second appeal stood abated.
4. In the circumstances, the second appeal is dismissed as abated. However, it is made clear that if the legal representatives of the appellant intend to pursue the second appeal, it is open to them to file an appropriate application in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected applications, if any, shall stand closed.
