Recall of dismissal orders requires sufficient cause and due diligence; repeated procedural default justified refusal of restoration.

A High Court may recall dismissal orders in restoration matters only where the applicant shows sufficient cause and due diligence. Here, persistent default in appearance and compliance- including no vakalatnama for junior counsel, failure to pay process fee, supply copies, file annexures, or take other directed steps- showed negligence rather than a bona fide lapse. The explanation that senior counsel was abroad did not account for the repeated omissions or the prolonged inaction in connected matters. Emphasising finality in proceedings, the Court held that its inherent power to recall could not be used to excuse gross negligence, and the restoration applications were rejected for want of sufficient cause.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should recall the orders dismissing the applications under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the ground of non-appearance and failure to take necessary steps.

Analysis: The applications for restoration were maintainable only if sufficient cause was shown for the earlier default. The absence of any filed vakalatnama for the junior counsel, the failure of the applicant or junior counsel to appear, and the continued omission to pay process fee, supply copies, file annexures, or take other directed steps showed persistent default rather than a bona fide lapse. The Court treated the power to recall as available in appropriate cases under its inherent jurisdiction, but only where due diligence and sufficient cause are established. Mere assertion that senior counsel was abroad did not explain the repeated failures or the long inaction in the connected matters. The Court also emphasised the need for finality in legal proceedings and declined to extend further indulgence in the face of gross negligence.

Conclusion: No sufficient cause was made out for recalling the dismissal orders, and the restoration applications were liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to recall a dismissal order may be exercised only on proof of sufficient cause and due diligence; absent such cause, repeated non-appearance and failure to comply with procedural requirements justify refusal of restoration.

---