LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/rajendhiran-vs-muthaiammal-muthayee-ors-20250415/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Rajendhiran vs Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.**

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
15 April 2025
Case No.
Miscellaneous Application No. 719 of 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024
Bench
Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta
Citation
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 829 : 2025 INSC 508
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 4 S.C.R. 829 : 2025 INSC 508
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains recall of judgment of this Court on the ground that the respondents in the appeals were not served.
Headnote

Suit – Matter pertaining to suit for declaration – Judgment/orders by this Court – Recall of judgment on the ground that the respondents in the appeal not served:

Held: In view of non-appearance of the parties for not being served, judgment is recalled. [Paras 1-2]

Keywords: Recall of judgment · Non-appearance of parties · Respondents not served

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Order 1. This application is filed by the applicant(s)/respondent(s) seeking recall of judgment dated 03.01.2024 passed in the instant Civil Appeal on the ground that the respondents in the appeal were not served. 2. Having considered the grounds taken for non-appearance, we are of the view that the application deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the judgment dated 03.01.2024 is recalled. 3. The appeal is taken on board. 4. Having heard both sides, we allow the Civil Appeal, in terms of the signed reportable judgment. Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave gra
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →