Restoration after long delay requires due diligence; non-communication of dismissal order does not by itself justify inaction.

A long delay in seeking restoration of an appeal was held not to be sufficiently explained where the appellant had failed to cure office objections, including absence of a power of attorney, despite repeated opportunities. The Court noted that the defects had been notified and affixed on the notice board, and that a litigant must prosecute proceedings with diligence. It also held that the statutory scheme did not make non-communication of the dismissal order, by itself, sufficient cause for nearly nine years of inaction. Liberal construction of sufficient cause could not override the requirement of vigilance, so rejection of the restoration request was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a nine-year delay in seeking recall of the Tribunal's dismissal order and restoration of the appeal was sufficiently explained, and whether the Tribunal was obliged to communicate the order despite the appellant's failure to remove office objections.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed with defects, including the absence of a power of attorney, and the Tribunal had repeatedly granted time to cure them. The record showed that the defects were notified and affixed on the notice board, and the appellant remained inactive for about nine years. The Court held that even if communication of the order was generally expected, the litigant also had a duty to pursue the appeal with vigilance. The statutory scheme under the Tribunal Regulations and Section 34(9) of the Karnataka Agricultural Income-Tax Act, 1957 did not support the appellant's claim that non-communication of the dismissal order automatically furnished sufficient cause. Liberal construction of sufficient cause could not be stretched to erase the requirement of diligence.

Conclusion: The delay was not satisfactorily explained, the Tribunal was not bound to restore the appeal, and the rejection of the miscellaneous petition was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A litigant seeking restoration after long delay must show sufficient cause with due diligence; mere non-communication of an order does not excuse prolonged inaction where defects were notified and the proceeding was not properly prosecuted.

---