Limitation for restoration runs from communication of the operative ex parte order, not a mere direction to proceed ex parte.

A mere order to proceed ex parte is procedural and does not amount to a final adjudication; limitation for restoration runs from the order affecting rights, understood as the date of actual or constructive communication. On that basis, a restoration application filed within fifteen days of the final ex parte order was treated as timely and not barred by limitation. The finding that sufficient cause existed for restoration was a factual determination, affirmed in revision, and was not open to interference in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional or manifest legal error. The writ petition was therefore without merit, and the restoration order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the restoration application was within limitation and maintainable when the order relied upon was only an order to proceed ex parte and the final ex parte decision was later passed; (ii) Whether the finding that sufficient cause existed for restoration could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the restoration application was within limitation and maintainable when the order relied upon was only an order to proceed ex parte and the final ex parte decision was later passed.

Analysis: Under the applicable provisions, the authority could dismiss the case for default or hear and determine it ex parte, but there was no separate legal provision for a mere order to proceed ex parte. The order dated earlier was only procedural and did not amount to a final judgment or determination. Limitation under the restoration provision ran from the date of the order against the party, which had to be understood in the sense of actual or constructive communication. Since the final ex parte order was passed later and the restoration application was filed within fifteen days from that date, it was treated as timely.

Conclusion: The restoration application was within time and was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the finding that sufficient cause existed for restoration could be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The question whether sufficient cause was made out depended on appreciation of facts by the authority deciding the restoration application. That finding had been affirmed in revision and was a finding of fact. Such a finding did not warrant interference under Article 226 unless a jurisdictional or manifest legal error was shown.

Conclusion: The finding on sufficient cause was not interferable in writ jurisdiction.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to be without merit and the dismissal left the restoration order undisturbed, with a direction for expeditious decision of the consolidation case on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where limitation depends on the date of an order affecting rights, the relevant date is the date of actual or constructive communication, and a mere order to proceed ex parte is not a final adjudication unless the matter is finally heard and determined.

---