Sufficient cause for restoration and delay condonation rejected after repeated defaults, defective explanations, and inadequate proof of bona fide mistake.

The petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause or bona fides for condonation of delay and restoration where the suit had been repeatedly dismissed for default and earlier restored, reflecting prolonged laxity in prosecution. The Trial Court found the applications defective because they did not give particulars of the delay, offered no credible explanation for non-appearance, and even included a restoration application in the name of a deceased plaintiff. Counsel's alleged oversight or inadvertence was held inadequate, so the refusals to condone delay and restore the matter were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners had shown sufficient cause and bona fides to warrant interference with the orders rejecting the delay condonation application and the restoration applications.

Analysis: The suit had repeatedly been dismissed for default and restored earlier, showing prolonged laxity in prosecution. The applications before the Trial Court suffered from serious defects, including failure to explain delay with particulars, lack of a credible explanation for non-appearance, and filing of one restoration application in the name of a deceased plaintiff. The explanation of counsel's oversight or inadvertence was found inadequate, and the surrounding conduct did not support a plea of bona fide mistake or sufficient cause.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause or bona fides, and the orders of the Trial Court refusing restoration and condonation were upheld.

---