Lala Mata Din vs A. Narayanan on 25 August, 1969
28. The last submission of Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Advocate General is that a litigant should not be made to suffer on account of the failure on the part of its counsel or power of attorney holder as in the present case. Mr.Raman, relied upon the observations of the Apex Court in Lala Mata Din Vs. A.Narayanan reported in (1969) 2 SCC 770. That was a case concerning a suite for rendition of accounts and an error had crept up in the manner in which the valuation of the reliefs was done, which was because of the mistake of their counsel. It was in that background that the time was extended by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In the present case, as seen above, we are concerned with a special Act, where there are specific provisions to act in a particular manner for filing the notice of opposition to the registration as well as for filing the counter statement. It may also be noted that it is a specialized field where specialized attorneys appear for the parties. That apart, an effective alternative remedy is very much available to the petitioner under the statute by filing a rectification application under Section 57 of the Act, which the petitioner has already filed. The only difference between the two proceedings will be that in the rectification proceedings the burden of proof will be on the petitioner, whereas in the opposition proceedings the burden of proof will be on the respondent 3.