{"id":27743,"date":"2011-01-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-01-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011"},"modified":"2016-11-07T14:18:52","modified_gmt":"2016-11-07T08:48:52","slug":"peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011","title":{"rendered":"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDATED: 05\/01\/2011\n\nCORAM\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL\n\nC.R.P.NPD.No.1185 of 2003\nand  C.M.P.No.12461 of 2003\n\n1.Peyathevar (died)\t\t\t..Petitioner NO. 1\/Defendant\n\n2.Jayalakshmi\n3.Suresh Kumar\n4.Asha Prabhakar\t\t\t... Petitioners 2 to 4\n\n(Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole petitioner\nvide order in C.M.P.No.1582 of 2004 dated 09.08.2006)\n\nVs.\n\nRenganathan\t\t\t\t... Respondent\/Plaintiff\n\nPrayer\n\nPetition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against\nthe fair and final order passed in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in O.S.No.121 of 1996 dated\n09.07.2003 on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam.\n\n!For Petitioners  ... Mr.Vellaichamy for Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan\n^For Respondent   ... Mr.A.Arumugam\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>\tThe Civil Revision Petitioner\/defendant has preferred the present Civil<br \/>\nRevision Petition as against the order dated 09.07.2003 in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in<br \/>\nO.S.No.121 of 1996 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Periyakulam.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t2. During the pendency of this Civil Revision Petition, the<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant has expired and therefore, his legal representatives have<br \/>\nbeen brought on record as revision petitioners 2 to 4 as per the order dated<br \/>\n09.08.2006 in C.M.P.No.1582 of 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t3. The trial Court while passing orders in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in O.S.No.121<br \/>\nof 1996 on 09.07.2003, has among other things, observed that &#8216;the petitioner has<br \/>\nnot clearly explained the reasons for the delay that has been caused and the<br \/>\nreason assigned for the delay is not to be condoned and resultantly, dismissed<br \/>\nthe said application with costs.&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>\t4. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the trial Court<br \/>\nwhile passing the order in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in O.S.No.121 of 1996, has not<br \/>\nproperly exercised its jurisdiction and in fact, the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant (since deceased) has established a sufficient cause for the<br \/>\ndelay, but this aspect of the matter has not been looked into by the trial Court<br \/>\nin a proper perspective which has resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t5. Continuing further, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\npetitioners that the trial Court should have adopted the liberal approach in<br \/>\nregard to the condonation of delay application and indeed, the order of the<br \/>\ntrial Court in dismissing the I.A.No.99 of 2002 dated 09.07.2003 is nothing but<br \/>\nthe denial of justice to the petitioners resulting in closing the doors for them<br \/>\nto prove their case of defence in the suit.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t6. Advancing his arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioners<br \/>\nsubmits that when the suit in O.S.No.121 of 1996 filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff is one for specific performance, then the trial Court<br \/>\nshould have provided an opportunity to the petitioners to contest the matter on<br \/>\nmerits.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t7. It is the stand of the petitioners that the non-appearance of the<br \/>\nrevision petitioner\/defendant (since deceased) has been due to misplacement of<br \/>\nthe letter written by the Counsel about the stage of the case and for the same,<br \/>\nthe petitioners ought not to be punished to suffer an ex-parte decree.  In<br \/>\nshort, the plea of the petitioners is that the trial Court has not looked into<br \/>\nthe material factual aspects of the matter in a real perspective and therefore,<br \/>\nprays for allowing the Civil Revision Petition in furtherance of substantial<br \/>\ncause of justice.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t8. Per contra, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff that the ex-parte decree has been passed on 02.11.2000 by<br \/>\nthe trial Court in the suit and E.P.No.22 of 2001 has been filed by the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff before the Executing Court and the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant (since deceased) has received the notice in E.P and<br \/>\nappeared through the Counsel for the first hearing on 29.03.2001 and further, in<br \/>\norder to save himself from the legal proceedings after filing of the E.P.No.22<br \/>\nof 2001, the revision petitioner\/defendant (since deceased) has projected<br \/>\nI.A.No.99 of 2002 by assigning false reasons.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t9. Also, it is the submission of the learned Counsel for the<br \/>\nrespondent\/plaintiff that I.A.No.99 of 2002 has been filed by the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant (since deceased) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to<br \/>\nprotract the legal proceedings with an ulterior motive and as such, the said<br \/>\napplication has to be dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t10. In the affidavit filed in I.A.No.99 of 2002 by the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant (since deceased), it is stated in paragraph 2 as hereunder:<br \/>\n\t&#8220;2. I submit that the suit came up for Trial on 2-11-2000. I submit that I<br \/>\nam working as Headmaster in a Government Higher Secondary School in Surlipatti,<br \/>\nTheni District and I used to come to once in a month only.  The members in my<br \/>\nfamily has misplaced the communication sent by my counsel regarding the date of<br \/>\nTrial and hence I was not able to attend the court on 2-11-2000. This honourable<br \/>\ncourt has set me exparte and a decree has also been passed against me. My<br \/>\nabsence on that was neither willful nor wanton. Only now I came to know about<br \/>\nthe exparte decree passed against me. I have got a good case to defend the suit.<br \/>\nHence I have filed an application to set aside the exparte decree passed against<br \/>\nme. In filing the application there is a delay of 425 days. The delay in filing<br \/>\nthis application is neither willful nor wanton. I am always ready and willing to<br \/>\nconduct the case.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t11. However, the respondent\/plaintiff in his counter to I.A.No.99 of 2002<br \/>\nhas inter alia mentioned that the revision petitioner\/defendant (since deceased)<br \/>\nhas deliberately not appeared on the date of hearing of the suit on 02.11.2000<br \/>\nand has allowed the case for passing of the exparte final decree and the reason<br \/>\nassigned by the revision petitioner\/defendant (since deceased) for condoning the<br \/>\ndelay of 425 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree, is<br \/>\nnot valid one in the eye of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies on the decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in K.Thirumurthy and another v. Muthammal and others reported in (2003)3<br \/>\nM.L.J.369, wherein it is held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Though sufficient cause is not shown to condone the delay in filing the<br \/>\npetition to set aside the ex parte decree to meet the ends of justice the delay<br \/>\ncan be condoned.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t13. He also seeks in aid the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1501504\/\">T.V.Sundaram<br \/>\nIyengar and Sons Ltd., Salem-9 v. S.Raghunathan<\/a> reported in (2008) 2 MLJ 845, at<br \/>\npage 846, wherein it is laid down as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;Generally a party does not stand to benefit by filing an application late<br \/>\nand refusing to condone the delay can result in a meritorious matter being<br \/>\nthrown out at the nascent stage and cause of justice being defeated.<br \/>\n\t&#8216;Sufficient Cause&#8217; for delay condonation must be viewed liberally.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\t14. It is true that the statute of limitation is a beneficial legislation.<br \/>\nIn an application for condonation of delay, it is the duty of the<br \/>\npetitioner\/petitioners to place all essential\/necessary materials before the<br \/>\nCourt of law for explaining the delay showing that there has been a sufficient<br \/>\ncause\/good cause entitling him for condonation of delay.  It is an axiomatic<br \/>\nprinciple in law that justice oriented approach is quite necessary when a Court<br \/>\nof law deals with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  Even<br \/>\nmere deviations from procedure are to be ignored by a Court of law while<br \/>\nexposing the cause of justice.  As a matter of fact, it cannot be construed that<br \/>\nin every case, the delay must necessarily be condoned as per the decision in<br \/>\nDevandas Kishnani and others v. Nanikram Kishnani and others  reported in  AIR<br \/>\n1993 Bom 76, at page 86.  Also in a condonation of delay application, if an<br \/>\nincorrect statement is made, then that will be a sufficient reason to reject the<br \/>\napplication as per the decision in  M\/s.Rish Prabhat v. Delhi Development<br \/>\nAuthority,  reported in  AIR 1995 Del 9.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t15. As far as the present case is concerned, the evidence of the revision<br \/>\npetitioner\/defendant (since deceased) (P.W.1) before the trial Court in cross-<br \/>\nexamination, is to the effect that even when he has been serving in outstation,<br \/>\nhis family has been at Madurai and before 04.01.2000, he has served at<br \/>\nThumbakundu and he used to travel from Thumbakundu to Madurai daily.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t16. It is the further evidence of revision petitioner\/defendant (since<br \/>\ndeceased) (P.W.1) that he has engaged an advocate viz., one Alagardevar on his<br \/>\nbehalf and during March 2001, he has met his counsel and his counsel has<br \/>\ninformed him that E.P. stage has come and an application can be filed and<br \/>\nfurther that, for every hearing, he used to meet his counsel and know about the<br \/>\nstage of his case, but he has not been remembering as to whether he has met his<br \/>\ncounsel before and only on 27.03.2001, he has received notice and has appeared<br \/>\nthrough counsel on 29.03.2001 and even on the date of receipt of notice, he has<br \/>\ncome to know about the ex-parte decree dated 02.11.2000 and on 31.01.2002, he<br \/>\nhas filed the condonation of delay application.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t17. At this juncture, it is useful for this Court to make a significant<br \/>\nmention to the averment made by the revision petitioner\/defendant (since<br \/>\ndeceased) in the sworn statement in the chief examination, in I.A.No.99 of 2002<br \/>\nat paragraph 3, wherein he has mentioned that during 02.11.2000, he has been<br \/>\nworking as a Teacher in Surlipatti and he used to go to his native place Madurai<br \/>\nonce in three or four months and when the suit has come up for final hearing on<br \/>\n02.11.2000, his counsel has informed him to his residential address, but he has<br \/>\nnot received the same and hence, he has not appeared for the hearing on<br \/>\n02.11.2000. The averment made by the revision petitioner\/defendant (since<br \/>\ndeceased) in his own affidavit in the chief examination in I.A.No.99 of 2002 at<br \/>\nparagraph 3 to the effect that during 02.11.2000, he has served in Surlipatti<br \/>\nand he used to come to Madurai once in three or four months, etc, is quite<br \/>\ncontrary to the admissions made by him as P.W.1 (in cross-examination on<br \/>\n24.03.2003) to the effect that he does not remember as to whether he has<br \/>\nmentioned in the affidavit in I.A.No.99 of 2002 that he has been serving at<br \/>\nSurlipatti and before that, he has served at Thumbakundu etc, and before<br \/>\n04.11.2000, he has served at Thumbakundu and at that time, he used to go to<br \/>\nMadurai daily.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t18. Therefore, the averment made by the revision petitioner\/defendant<br \/>\n(since deceased) at paragraph 3 of the sworn affidavit in I.A.No.99 of 2002 to<br \/>\nthe effect that he used to go to Madurai once in three or four months when he<br \/>\nhas been serving at Surlipatti is not a correct statement and it is quite clear<br \/>\nthat the petitioner has not come out with a genuine and bona fide<br \/>\nsufficient\/good cause and this itself is quite sufficient reason to reject the<br \/>\napplication, in the considered opinion of this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t19. Added further, even when the revision petitioner\/defendant (since<br \/>\ndeceased) has received the notice in E.P.No.22 of 2001 on 27.03.2001 and<br \/>\nappeared through the counsel on 29.03.2001, he has projected the condonation of<br \/>\ndelay application only on 31.01.2002.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t20. Be that as it may, even though this Court is quite aware of well<br \/>\nsettled principle that a Court of law must ensure that the substantial justice<br \/>\nis to be delivered to the parties by adopting a liberal approach, yet on the<br \/>\nbasis of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the<br \/>\nincorrect averment made by the revision petitioner\/defendant (since deceased) as<br \/>\nP.W.1 before the trial Court in I.A.No.99 of 2002 {as between the averment made<br \/>\nby him in paragraph 3 of the sworn statement in I.A.No.99 of 2002 and the<br \/>\nadmission made by the revision petitioner\/defendant (since deceased) in his<br \/>\ncross-examination on 24.03.2003 that before 04.11.2000, he has served at<br \/>\nThumbakundu, he used to go to Madurai daily.}, this Court is unable to adopt a<br \/>\nliberal approach overriding technicalities and since the petitioner has not made<br \/>\nout a bona fide, genuine sufficient\/good cause in his application in I.A.No.99<br \/>\nof 2002 and in his evidence as P.W.1 before the trial Court, this Court is<br \/>\nperforced to reject the I.A.No.99 of 2002 and on going through the order passed<br \/>\nby the trial Court in I.A.No.99 of 2002, the same is not tainted with any<br \/>\nillegality or material irregularity and resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition<br \/>\nis devoid of merits and viewed in that perspective, the Civil Revision Petition<br \/>\nfails.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t21. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving the<br \/>\nparties to bear their own costs and the order in I.A.No.99 of 2002 in O.S.No.121<br \/>\nof 1996 dated 09.07.2003 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Periyakulam, is<br \/>\naffirmed by this Court for the reasons assigned in this Civil Revision Petition.<br \/>\nConsequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>rsb<\/p>\n<p>To<br \/>\nThe Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.\n<\/p>\n<p>COPY TO: THE SECTION OFFICER, VR SECTION,<br \/>\n\tMADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05\/01\/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL C.R.P.NPD.No.1185 of 2003 and C.M.P.No.12461 of 2003 1.Peyathevar (died) ..Petitioner NO. 1\/Defendant 2.Jayalakshmi 3.Suresh Kumar 4.Asha Prabhakar &#8230; Petitioners 2 to 4 (Petitioners 2 to 4 are brought on [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27743","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-07T08:48:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-07T08:48:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\"},\"wordCount\":2050,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\",\"name\":\"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-01-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-07T08:48:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-07T08:48:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011","datePublished":"2011-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-07T08:48:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011"},"wordCount":2050,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011","name":"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-01-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-07T08:48:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/peyathevar-died-vs-renganathan-on-5-january-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Peyathevar (Died) vs Renganathan on 5 January, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27743","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27743"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27743\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27743"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27743"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27743"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}