Recall of dismissal for non-appearance denied where long delay, dispatch records, and contemporaneous service undermined non-service plea.

A party seeking recall of a dismissal for non-appearance must act within a reasonable time and cannot reopen the matter after extraordinary delay on a bare plea of non-service where the official record shows dispatch of notice and the Tribunal contemporaneously recorded service. Here, the petitioners remained inactive for about sixteen years, the appeal record had been lost, and the dispatch register supported the Tribunal's account. Those facts made verification of actual service impracticable and justified refusal to interfere. The request for recall or restoration was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to recall the Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal for non-appearance after an inordinate delay of about sixteen years on the plea that notice of hearing was not served and that the appeal ought to have been decided on merits.

Analysis: The record showed dispatch of notice to the petitioners and the Tribunal's order itself recorded that though served, none appeared. The petitioners took no steps for more than sixteen years to enquire about the appeal. By then the record had been lost, making it unreasonable to cast a heavy burden on the Tribunal Registry to prove actual service. The prolonged inaction, the official dispatch register, and the Tribunal's contemporaneous recording were sufficient to decline interference with the dismissal order. The petitioners could not, after such extraordinary delay, reopen the matter or insist that the appeal should now be restored.

Conclusion: The request for recall/restoration was rejected and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking recall of a dismissal for non-appearance must act within a reasonable time and cannot rely on a belated plea of non-service when the official record supports dispatch of notice and the delay has made verification impracticable.

---