Court denies restoration of dismissed appeals, rejects plea to sell attached property for pre-deposit adjustment.

The Bench dismissed the appellant's applications for restoration of appeals that were previously dismissed for non-compliance. The appellant's plea to sell the attached property to adjust the pre-deposit was rejected as it did not present any new circumstances justifying reconsideration. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with orders and the requirement for substantial changes in circumstances to support restoration applications. The Revenue authorities had already appointed an auctioneer for the property auction, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's applications.

---

---

Issues:
- Restoration of appeals dismissed for non-compliance
- Appellant's property attached by Revenue authorities
- Request to sell property to adjust pre-deposit
- Previous applications for restoration dismissed
- Appointment of auctioneer by Revenue authorities

Analysis:
The judgment deals with two stay applications filed for the restoration of appeals that were dismissed by the Bench for non-compliance. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the applications were filed to restore the appeals as the appellant's property was attached by the Revenue authorities, and they had requested the authorities to sell the property to adjust the proceeds towards the pre-deposit ordered by the Bench. On the other hand, the departmental representative informed that the department had already taken action to appoint an auctioneer to auction the attached property.

The Bench noted that this was the second set of applications filed by the appellant for restoration of appeals. In the previous set of applications, the same plea was made, and those applications were dismissed due to the loss of considerable time in moving for restoration, even with the property attachment. The Bench had held that the attachment of the property did not satisfy the conditions of the stay order. The current applications did not present any new circumstances warranting further consideration. Additionally, it was confirmed that the Revenue authorities had appointed an auctioneer for the property auction.

Based on the above, the Bench found no merit in the applications for restoration of appeals and consequently dismissed both applications. The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with orders and the need for significant changes in circumstances to warrant reconsideration of restoration applications.

---