Condonation of delay and restoration of appeal denied where unexplained inaction and litigant negligence showed no sufficient cause.

Condonation of delay in seeking restoration requires a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause; unexplained inaction, failure to cure office objections, and repeated delayed motions defeated condonation. On the facts, the Department's prolonged negligence in prosecuting the appeal, coupled with an unjustified attempt to blame counsel despite correspondence showing that only expenses were sought, meant restoration was not warranted. The delay was refused to be condoned and the appeal was not restored, leaving the dismissal for non-prosecution undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay in filing the notice of motion seeking restoration of the appeal was liable to be condoned. (ii) Whether the appeal deserved to be restored on the facts and conduct disclosed.

Issue (i): Whether the delay in filing the notice of motion seeking restoration of the appeal was liable to be condoned.

Analysis: The record showed prolonged inaction at multiple stages. The office objections to the appeal were not removed within time, the first restoration motion was withdrawn after failing to explain substantial delay, and the fresh motion was filed after further delay. The correspondence also showed that the Department did not take timely steps and sought to shift responsibility to the advocate despite not making payment for out-of-pocket expenses. The explanation offered did not establish sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not liable to be condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal deserved to be restored on the facts and conduct disclosed.

Analysis: The Court found complete negligence on the part of the Department in prosecuting the appeal. It held that the Department's attempt to blame the advocate was unjustified, especially when the correspondence showed that the advocate had asked only for necessary expenses and had not refused to act without cause. In the absence of a proper explanation and in view of the Department's conduct, restoration was not warranted.

Conclusion: The appeal was not liable to be restored.

Final Conclusion: No condonation or restoration was granted, and the proceeding ended in dismissal for non-prosecution caused by the applicant's unexplained delay and negligence.

Ratio Decidendi: Condonation of delay and restoration of an appeal require a satisfactory explanation showing sufficient cause; where the litigant's own negligence and unexplained inaction are evident, restoration must be refused.

---