Recall of dismissal for omitted issues allowed, but erroneous refusal of adjournment alone did not justify restoration.

Omission to consider a material part of the controversy can justify recall of a dismissal order and restoration of the appeal; here, the Tribunal reopened the dismissal because the goods described as shuttering and centering had not been dealt with, and the appeal was listed for fresh hearing. An adjournment, however, is not a matter of right, and refusal of an adjournment request, even if alleged to be erroneous, does not by itself entitle a party to restoration. The explanation for absence of instructions was found unconvincing, so restoration on that ground was refused and the related appeal remained rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order dismissing the appeal was liable to be recalled and the appeal restored because the Tribunal had not dealt with the goods described as shuttering and centering. (ii) Whether the appeal could be restored on the ground that an adjournment sought by counsel had been refused and the matter was decided ex parte.

Issue (i): Whether the order dismissing the appeal was liable to be recalled and the appeal restored because the Tribunal had not dealt with the goods described as shuttering and centering.

Analysis: The omission to consider the stated subject matter of the goods in the appeal was treated as a sufficient ground to reopen the earlier dismissal order.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was recalled and the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal could be restored on the ground that an adjournment sought by counsel had been refused and the matter was decided ex parte.

Analysis: Adjournment was held not to be a matter of right, and refusal to adjourn, even if erroneous, was treated as a matter to be challenged in accordance with law rather than a ground for restoration. The explanation offered for absence of instructions was found unconvincing.

Conclusion: Restoration on this ground was refused.

Final Conclusion: One restoration application succeeded and the other failed, leaving one appeal restored for fresh hearing while the remaining appeal stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An erroneous refusal of adjournment does not, by itself, entitle a party to restoration of an appeal; a recall may be granted only where the earlier disposal is shown to have omitted consideration of a material part of the controversy.

---