Pre-deposit compliance and delayed restoration defeated the request to reopen an appeal dismissed for non-compliance.

An application to restore an appeal dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement was rejected because the pre-deposit was made belatedly and the restoration request was filed after substantial unexplained delay. The opposing contention was that reopening the matter would disturb the final order, and no sufficient basis was found on the facts to justify restoration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissed appeal should be restored on the ground that the pre-deposit amount was paid belatedly and the restoration application was filed after substantial delay.

Analysis: The application sought restoration of an appeal earlier dismissed for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement. The requested relief was opposed on the ground that entertaining it would unsettle the final order and that the application had been moved after a long unexplained delay. On the facts, no sufficient basis was found to reopen the matter.

Conclusion: The application for restoration of the appeal was rejected.

---