Restoration applications must be filed within a reasonable time; inordinate unexplained delay bars recall of dismissal orders.

A restoration request filed more than four and a half years after dismissal of the appeal for default was held not maintainable. Although the procedural rules did not prescribe an express limitation period for restoration, the Tribunal applied the principle that such relief must be sought within a reasonable time. The appellant had been sent a copy of the dismissal order at known addresses, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for the prolonged delay. Inordinate unexplained delay defeated the request, and the Tribunal declined to recall the earlier order or restore the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the appeal, filed after more than 41/2 years from dismissal of the appeal for default, was maintainable and liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The application was made long after the Tribunal's earlier order dismissing the appeal for default. The copy of that order had been sent to the appellant and its advocate at their known addresses, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the prolonged delay. Even though no express limitation period was prescribed for restoration under the procedural rules, the power to seek restoration had to be exercised within a reasonable time. A litigant is expected to remain vigilant and cannot approach the Tribunal after an inordinate lapse of time.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was not filed within a reasonable time and was therefore not maintainable. It was rejected, in favour of the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to recall its earlier order and declined restoration of the dismissed appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where no express limitation period is prescribed, a restoration request must still be made within a reasonable time, and inordinate unexplained delay defeats the relief.

---