Restoration petition and sufficient cause: partner's application could not be rejected on a hyper-technical view, and the appeal was restored.

A firm may act through a person competent in law to represent it, and a partner was not incompetent to seek restoration merely because the original appeal had been filed through an authorised representative. The Tribunal was found to have taken a hyper-technical view and failed to consider the grievance that notice of posting was not received. On that basis, the finding that no sufficient cause was shown was unsustainable. The dismissal of the restoration petition was therefore set aside, and the appeal was restored for consideration after notice to the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the restoration petition for default on the ground that it was filed by a partner and for want of sufficient cause.

Analysis: A firm is a compendious entity and may act through a person competent under the law to represent it. The fact that the original appeal had been filed through an authorised representative did not by itself foreclose the partner's competence to seek restoration. The Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach and did not advert to the grievance that notice of posting was not received. In these circumstances, the finding that no sufficient cause was shown was unsustainable.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the restoration petition was unjustified and was set aside; the appeal was restored for consideration after notice to the petitioner.

---