Restoration after dismissal for non-prosecution requires reasonable promptness; unexplained delay can defeat restoration requests.

A restoration application against dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution must be moved within a reasonable period, ordinarily treated as three months from the date of dismissal. Where the application is filed after a long delay and the applicant fails to show sufficient cause for the delay, restoration is not sustainable. The Tribunal also noted that an authority cited by the applicant was inapplicable on the facts. The practical effect is that unexplained delay can defeat restoration even where no specific limitation period is expressly prescribed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution was maintainable when filed after a long delay, and whether any sufficient cause was shown to justify restoration.

Analysis: The application for restoration was filed well beyond three months from the date of dismissal. The Tribunal followed the view that, although no specific limitation period is prescribed for restoration applications, such applications ought ordinarily to be moved within a reasonable period, treated as three months from dismissal of the appeal. The applicant offered no sufficient explanation for the long delay, and the authority relied upon by the applicant was held to be inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The restoration application was held to be not sustainable and was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A restoration application against dismissal for non-prosecution must be filed within a reasonable period, ordinarily within three months, and unexplained long delay without sufficient cause is fatal to the request for restoration.

---