Restoration of dismissed appeal requires satisfactory, timely explanation for delay and default; negligence defeats restoration.

An application to restore an appeal dismissed for non-compliance and non-appearance was rejected because it was filed after an inordinate five-year delay without a cogent explanation. The record showed negligence and no sufficient cause for the delay, the default, or the failure to prosecute the matter diligently. Restoration was therefore refused, and the earlier dismissal of the appeal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of the appeal, filed after a delay of about five years, deserved to be allowed.

Analysis: The appeal had earlier been dismissed for non-compliance and non-appearance under Rule 20 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The application for restoration was filed after an inordinate delay of five years, and no cogent explanation was furnished for the delay or for the failure to report compliance and prosecute the matter diligently. The record showed negligence and lack of sufficient cause to justify restoration.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the restoration request stood confirmed, leaving the earlier dismissal of the appeal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: An application to restore an appeal dismissed for non-appearance or non-compliance cannot be allowed in the absence of a satisfactory and timely explanation showing sufficient cause for the delay and default.

---