Condonation of delay and restoration of appeal granted where notice was not served through the disclosed advocate.

Delay in filing a restoration application was condoned where notices and the dismissal order were repeatedly returned undelivered, the factory address had closed, and no attempt was made to serve the disclosed advocate. On that basis, the earlier dismissal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was recalled and the appeal restored to its original number. The tribunal also directed compliance with the pre-deposit order within the stipulated period and kept recovery in abeyance upon such compliance.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the restoration application deserved condonation when the notices and order were returned undelivered and no attempt was made to serve the appellant through the advocate named in the appeal memo; (ii) Whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement should be recalled and the appeal restored.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the restoration application deserved condonation when the notices and order were returned undelivered and no attempt was made to serve the appellant through the advocate named in the appeal memo.

Analysis: The communications were sent only to the factory address, which had been closed, and were repeatedly returned undelivered. The record also showed that the advocate's name, address and contact numbers had been furnished, yet no effort was made to serve notice through him. In these circumstances, the plea that the appellant became aware of the dismissal only upon later recovery proceedings was accepted, and the cited principle regarding belated restoration applications was distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement should be recalled and the appeal restored.

Analysis: Once the delay was condoned, the basis for the earlier dismissal for non-compliance ceased to survive. The Tribunal therefore exercised its power to recall the dismissal order and restore the appeal to its original number, while directing compliance with the pre-deposit order within the stipulated period and keeping recovery in abeyance upon such compliance.

Conclusion: The dismissal order was recalled and the appeal was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded on restoration and condonation, with the matter revived for further proceedings and interim protection linked to compliance with the pre-deposit direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where notices are returned undelivered and the record shows that an available alternative mode of service on the disclosed advocate was not used, the delay in seeking restoration may be condoned and the dismissal for non-compliance may be recalled.

---