CMP No. 10115 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU CMP No. 10115 of 2026 IN CRP NO. 3188 OF 2011 Dr.T.Velayudam ..Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Tmt. Thilakavathi Santhaseelan 2. Selvi Narmadha Santhaseelan 3. Selvi Vedha Santhaseelan 4. S.Santhanlatchumy 5. Sumathradevi 6. Munisamy 7. Soudagar 8. Colonel C.K.Gangadharan (Retd.) 9. Suganya 10.C.Essoudasse 11.S.Adhikesavan(A) 12.M.Malini Cambusier 13.Julia Cambusier 14.Karthikeyan 15.S.Shankar 16.Rohini Gangadharan 17.Tamilarasi 18.Mohammed Macoloom 19.D.K.Sharma 20.Gowrimani 21.Purushothaman 22.Mohammed Macoloom 23.S.Radhakrishnan 24.Malathy 25.Sivasankaran 26.Suriyamurthy 27.Indiradevi 28.Velmurugan ..Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 10115 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 Prayer : This petition to restore CRP No. 3188 of 2011 dismissed on 23.01.2023 on the file of this Court. For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Kishore Kumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vadivel – RR4,5,6,8,19,21,22,25,26, & 27. Mr.T.M.Naveen for Mr.J.P.Jotheeswaran – RR11, 12 & 17 Ms.G.Sumitra – R15 No appearance – RR1 & 2 Sd-N/A for RR10,23,13,14,16,18, 24 & 28 No ready in notice reg.-RR3, 7, 9 and 20. O R D E R This petition has been filed to restore CRP No. 3188 of 2011 dismissed on 23.01.2023 to the file of this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the restoration by contending that the claim of the petitioner under the Agricultural Tenancy Laws of the Puducherry Union [The Puducherry Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1970] itself is not maintainable as he does not have title to the entire property and what he was purchased only a plot, which could be used only for residential purposes. Having not diligently prosecuted the Revision, the petitioner cannot be entitled for restoration of the Revision Petition. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 10115 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of this petition would indicate that the age of the petitioner would be about 80 years and he had indicated that due to his old age and bare health condition, he had chronic disease, which had intervened with the diligence in prosecuting the Revision. When the petitioner had granted substantial reasoning, which had also been supported by the medical records filed along with the typed set of papers and also taking into consideration his age, this Court is inclined to allow this miscellaneous petition. 5. As the sequence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed and the Revision Petition is restored to file. No order as to costs. 16-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No Maya https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMP No. 10115 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 K.KUMARESH BABU, J. Maya CMP No. 10115 of 2026 in CRP No. 3188 of 2011 Dated : 16-04-2026 2/3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis