Restoration application based on an incorrect factual premise was held infructuous; costs were imposed for frivolous filing.

A miscellaneous application seeking rectification of mistake and restoration of an appeal was found infructuous because a separate appeal arising from the same order-in-appeal was already on record and pending; the request was therefore dismissed. The Tribunal also treated the application as misleading and frivolous because it proceeded on an incorrect factual premise and consumed judicial time without justification. Costs were imposed on the Commissionerate as a deterrent, with recovery directed from the erring officer. The stated principle is that a restoration or rectification request based on a false or incomplete factual basis will not be entertained when the relevant appeal already exists and remains pending.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the miscellaneous application seeking rectification of mistake and restoration of the appeal was maintainable when a separate appeal arising from the same order-in-appeal was already on record and pending. (ii) Whether costs could be imposed for filing a misleading and frivolous application.

Issue (i): Whether the miscellaneous application seeking rectification of mistake and restoration of the appeal was maintainable when a separate appeal arising from the same order-in-appeal was already on record and pending.

Analysis: The application proceeded on the footing that only one appeal had been filed against a common order-in-appeal covering two different amounts. The Registry, however, confirmed that a second appeal had in fact been filed against the same order-in-appeal for the other amount and that it remained pending. In that situation, the premise of the application was incorrect and the request for restoration became unnecessary.

Conclusion: The application was held to be infructuous and was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether costs could be imposed for filing a misleading and frivolous application.

Analysis: The application was found to be based on an incorrect averment and was held to have consumed Tribunal time without justification. The Tribunal treated the conduct as warranting deterrent action to prevent repetition of such unwarranted filings.

Conclusion: Costs were imposed on the Commissionerate, with recovery directed from the erring officer.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal refused to restore the appeal, treated the miscellaneous application as infructuous, and directed payment of costs as a deterrent against frivolous litigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A rectification or restoration application founded on an incorrect factual premise is infructuous where the supposed omission is cured by the existence of a separate pending appeal arising from the same order.

---