DEENADAYALAN v. K.GOVINDASAMY (DIED)1. RAJENDRAN
Court: Madras High Court
Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU
Judgment date:
Case summary
Madras High Court judgment dated 2025-12-03. DEENADAYALAN v. K.GOVINDASAMY (DIED)1. RAJENDRAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
CMP No. 17256 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-12-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. V. KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. KUMARESH BABU CMP No. 17256 of 2025 in CROS. OBJ SR. No. 105689 of 2025 1. DEENADAYALAN S/o. Late. Govindasamy, Mandi Subbu Naidu Street, C/o. Venkateswara Timber Mart, Polur Town, Polur Tk, Tiruvannamalai District. Appellant(s) Vs 1. K. Govindasamy (died)1. Rajendran S/o. Late. Govindasamy, No. 7, Padmabai Street, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District. 2. VASUDEVAN S/o. Late. Govindasamy, No. 7, Padmabai Street, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District. 3. Elangeswaran @ Ramesh https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis CMP No. 17256 of 2025 S/o. Late. Govindasamy, No. 7, Padmabai Street, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District. 4. Mohan @ Mohandoss S/o. Late. Govindasamy, No. 7, Padmabai Street, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District. 5. Jayagopal S/o. Late. Govindasamy, Diversion Road, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District. 6. Ramani D/o.
Late. Govindasamy Diversion Road, Polur Town, Tiruvannamalai District. 7. K. G. Anusuya Devi W/o. S. Jayakumar, Perumal Mudali Street, Kondithoppu, Chennai 8. K. G. Shanthi W/o. Sridhar, 70, G. K. M. Building, Salem Main Road, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi Dist. Respondent(s) For Appellant(s): D. Chitra Maragatham For Respondent(s): Mr. N. Manokaran for R1 to R3 Mr. M. Ganesan for R7 and R8 ORDER https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis CMP No. 17256 of 2025 This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 299 days in filing the cross objection. 2. It is to be noted that A. S. No. 447 of 2024 had already been filed questioning the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 51 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tiruvannamalai. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it had been stated that the counsel could not be met to give necessary instructions and in that process, there has been a delay in preferring the cross objection. 4.
Since both the appeal and cross objection arise from the judgment and decree of the original suit in O. S. No. 51 of 2007, it would only be appropriate that all the parties are heard on merits. The delay is condoned. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. 5. The Registry is directed to number of cross objection, if it is otherwise in order. (C. V. K. , J. ) (K. B. , J. ) 03. 12. 2025 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis CMP No. 17256 of 2025 smv https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis CMP No. 17256 of 2025 C. V. KARTHIKEYAN J. AND K. KUMARESH BABU J. smv CMP No. 17256 of 2025 in CROS. OBJ SR. No. 105689 of 2025 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis CMP No. 17256 of 2025 03-12-2025 https://www. mhc. tn. gov. in/judis
Source: Madras High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.