Pre-deposit compliance and restoration of appeal require specific sufficient cause; later payment alone does not revive dismissal.

Restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with a pre-deposit direction requires a specific and satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal held that a vague, unsupported explanation was inadequate, particularly where the appellant had already been given sufficient opportunity and had assured compliance within time. Subsequent deposit of the balance amount did not, by itself, justify recall of the dismissal order. The earlier dismissal for breach of the pre-deposit condition was therefore maintained and restoration was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal, earlier dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction under Section 35F, should be recalled and restored on the ground that the balance amount had subsequently been deposited and delay in payment should be condoned.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the appellant had been granted sufficient opportunity and had given a specific assurance to deposit the balance amount within the stipulated time. The explanation offered for the delay was vague and unsupported by any clear or satisfactory cause. The cited authorities were held to be fact-specific and not laying down any general rule that restoration must follow merely because the pre-deposit was later made.

Conclusion: The request for recall of the earlier order and restoration of the appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition was maintained, and no restoration of the appeal was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: Restoration after dismissal for breach of a pre-deposit condition requires a satisfactory and specific explanation showing sufficient cause; mere subsequent payment does not entitle a party to recall of the dismissal order.

---