Advocate VR Sreejith, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had entrusted the matter to another lawyer and had reposed full faith in his counsel believing that the case would be properly contested.
Reliance was placed on the the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu & Ors. v Gobardhan Sao & Ors., in which it was held that Courts should not reject an application for restoring or setting aside the ex-parte decree in a slipshod manner order, or take a hyper technical view of the explanation furnished by the party and reject the application, causing enormous loss and irreparable injury to the party.
However, the MACT, without following the ratio in the above precedents, in a casual manner dismissed all the applications, he contended.
This was opposed by advocate VPK Panicker, appearing for the respondent, who contended that there were willful laches and negligence on the part of the petitioner in conducting the claim petition.
Source: Barandbench
