Condonation of inordinate delay requires a specific, credible explanation for the full period of inaction in restoration matters

A party seeking restoration of appeals dismissed for failure to remove office objections must show sufficient cause for the entire delay with a specific and credible explanation. The Bombay HC found the Revenue's explanation for a 958-day delay vague, unsupported, and legally inadequate, as administrative restructuring, file movement, and misplaced records did not justify prolonged inaction. In the absence of diligence and particulars covering the whole period, the delay was not condoned and the restoration applications were rejected, leaving the appeals dismissed without merits adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Revenue had shown sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay in seeking restoration of the appeals dismissed for non-removal of office objections.

Analysis: The appeals had been dismissed under the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules for failure to remove office objections within the permitted time. The subsequent restoration request was filed after a delay of 958 days. The Court found the explanation offered by the Revenue to be vague, unsupported by particulars, and legally inadequate. Administrative restructuring, shifting of files, and alleged misplacement of records did not explain the prolonged inaction, especially when the duty to pursue the matter with diligence remained with the Revenue. In the absence of a credible and specific explanation, the delay could not be excused.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the restoration applications were rejected, against the Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The appeals remained dismissed without adjudication on merits, and the connected notices of motion stood disposed of consequentially.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking restoration after dismissal for non-removal of office objections must establish sufficient cause with a specific and credible explanation for the entire period of delay; vague administrative explanations and general assertions of departmental difficulty do not justify condonation of inordinate delay.

---