Tribunal Denies Restoration Application; Advocate's Default Leads to Dismissal

The Tribunal dismissed the application for restoration of appeal due to default in appearance by the advocate. It held that filing a second restoration application after the first one had been disposed of is impermissible, as the Tribunal becomes functus officio upon passing a reasoned order. The appellants' reliance on a Supreme Court decision was deemed inapplicable due to differing circumstances. The Tribunal emphasized that inherent powers cannot be exercised as a matter of course and must be justified, which the applicants failed to do. Therefore, the application was dismissed based on lack of merit.

---

---

Issues:
Application for restoration of appeal based on default in appearance by the advocate, maintainability of second restoration application, inherent power of the Tribunal to entertain such application.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around an application for restoration of an appeal due to default in appearance by the advocate. The appellants relied on a Supreme Court decision to argue that they should not suffer due to the advocate's absence. They contended that the appeal should be restored based on settled law regarding default in appearance by the advocate.

The Tribunal considered a previous restoration application and highlighted that once such an application is disposed of, the only remedy available is before higher authorities unless an error apparent on the face of the order is pointed out. In this case, the new application was based on a different ground, which does not allow for filing another application after the previous one has been finally disposed of.

The Tribunal emphasized that it became functus officio upon passing a reasoned order on the previous restoration application. It stated that re-agitating the issue of restoration under a new application is impermissible. The judgment clarified that the Supreme Court decision cited by the appellants did not apply to the current situation as the circumstances differed, and the previous restoration application had already been disposed of by a reasoned order.

Regarding the inherent powers of the Tribunal, it was noted that they cannot be exercised as a matter of course. The party seeking the Tribunal to exercise such powers must establish a case for it, which the applicants failed to do in this instance. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the application and dismissed it based on the reasons provided in the judgment.

---