MANNU RAM Vs. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave is granted to the learned Counsel for the petitioners to convert this petition into one under Article 227 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioners shall take steps to amend the cause title course of today.

(2.) The claim petition of the petitioners being Claim Case No. 23 of the 1990 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ballia, was dismissed in default on 12.8.1992. It appears that an application for restoration was filed on 29.10.1992. The said application was registered as Application No. 74 of 1992. The restoration application was dismissed in default on 27.51994. A restoration application against the said order was filed on 11.7.94, which was registered as Case No. 3-A of 1994. By an order dated 18.11.1997 the said application was rejected. All these orders have since been challenged in this petition.

(3.) Mr. Ashish Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, contends that the court below had taken a very technical view of the matter and, therefore, learned Judge had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him. Mr. B.K. Sinha, learned Counsel holding brief of Mr. Mukherji appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4 on the other hand, contends that the petitioners appeal' to be habitual defaulters and had not been able to establish sufficient cause and, therefore, the said application was rightly dismissed.