Madras HC Orders Deceased Defendant’s Heirs Added To Temple’s 48-Year Possession Suit, Directs Disposal Within 4 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the applications to condone delay, set aside abatement, and bring the deceased first defendant’s legal representatives on record

The court held

The Court allowed all three civil revision petitions, set aside the trial court’s orders dismissing the applications, and directed the trial court to implead the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant and dispose of the suit within four months of receiving the order.

It also directed

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The Temple filed a suit for recovery of possession and consequential reliefs, which was decreed on 30 November 2000.

On appeal, the matter was remanded for a de novo trial on 22 February 2010.

After the original documents were received by the trial court on 21 March 2019, the Temple filed a memo on 5 September 2019 informing the court that the first defendant had died.

pp. 6–7

In 2022, it applied to condone the delay, set aside the abatement, and bring the deceased defendant’s legal representatives on record.

pp. 6–7

The trial court dismissed the applications on 25 February 2025, finding the delay excessive and insufficiently explained.

pp. 6–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the applications to condone delay, set aside abatement, and bring the deceased first defendant’s legal representatives on record

pp. 6–7

ii.2. Whether, in the circumstances of a suit remanded for a de novo trial, the applications should be considered liberally to advance substantial justice

pp. 7–8

03Law Applied

The petitions were brought under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to exercise supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

p. 6

Relying on Subramani and Ors. v. Ramasamy and Ors., 2007 3 MLJ 22, the Court stated that applications to set aside abatement should receive a liberal construction in the interests of substantial justice; mere delay, by itself, does not require dismissal.

p. 7

04Reasoning

The Court considered that the suit remained pending after remand for a de novo trial and that trial had not yet commenced.

pp. 7–8

In that context, it held that the delay alone did not justify rejecting the applications on technical grounds.

pp. 7–8

It also concluded that bringing the deceased defendant’s legal representatives on record would cause no prejudice and would enable the suit to proceed to determination.

pp. 7–8