Restoration after dismissal for default requires prompt action and a satisfactory explanation for delay; unexplained inaction defeats relief.

A restoration petition filed after dismissal of an appeal for default may be refused where the applicant does not act with reasonable diligence and fails to explain the delay satisfactorily. The High Court noted that the petition was moved about ten months after dismissal, and the explanation that counsel was delayed by a vehicle breakdown was not accepted. Because the inaction after dismissal remained unexplained and no sufficient cause was shown, the Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal was upheld and the tax revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in rejecting the restoration petition filed after dismissal of the appeal for default, having regard to the delay in seeking restoration.

Analysis: The restoration application was filed about ten months after the appeal had been dismissed for non-representation. The explanation that counsel arrived late due to vehicle breakdown was not accepted, and the petitioner had not acted with promptitude after the dismissal. The delay in moving the restoration petition was found to be unexplained and not supported by a sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The rejection of the restoration petition was upheld. The petitioner failed to establish any error of law in the Tribunal's order.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Tribunal's refusal to restore the appeal failed, and the tax revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking restoration after dismissal for default must act with reasonable diligence and explain the delay satisfactorily; unexplained prolonged inaction is sufficient ground to refuse restoration.

---