Appeals dismissed for non-prosecution due to repeated delays and lack of genuine effort

The appeals were initially dismissed for non-prosecution due to the repeated absence of the appellants, leading to restoration following their explanation for the absences. Despite multiple adjournments sought by the appellants, concerns arose over their commitment to the case. A lack of Vakalatnama for Proxy Counsel prompted a further adjournment request, viewed as a delay tactic. The Tribunal observed a deliberate delay pattern by the appellants, culminating in the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution due to their continuous delays and lack of genuine effort in pursuing the matter effectively.

---

---

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution due to repeated absence of appellants.
2. Restoration of appeals after initial dismissal.
3. Continuous adjournments sought by appellants.
4. Lack of Vakalatnama for Proxy Counsel leading to further adjournment request.
5. Allegation of deliberate delay by appellants in disposal of appeals.

Issue 1: Dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution due to repeated absence of appellants
The appeals were filed in 2008 but faced dismissal for non-prosecution in November 2017 as the appellants were consistently unrepresented during various listing dates. However, the order of dismissal was later recalled and appeals were restored in September 2018 due to the appellants' claim that their counsel was engaged by the department for another matter. Despite subsequent adjournments, the appellants remained absent on final disposal dates, leading the Bench to consider dismissal for non-prosecution again.

Issue 2: Restoration of appeals after initial dismissal
Following the initial dismissal, the appellants' request led to the restoration of the appeals, acknowledging their explanation for the earlier absence. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to recall the order of dismissal and reinstate the appeals to their original status, allowing the appellants another opportunity to present their case.

Issue 3: Continuous adjournments sought by appellants
The appellants sought multiple adjournments, delaying the final disposal of the appeals. Despite being given several chances, including a final opportunity, the appellants failed to effectively pursue their case, leading to concerns about their commitment to the appeals' resolution.

Issue 4: Lack of Vakalatnama for Proxy Counsel leading to further adjournment request
During a hearing, the Proxy Counsel appeared without the necessary Vakalatnama to represent the appellants. Despite expressing intent to argue the case herself, the Proxy Counsel's lack of authorization raised concerns, prompting a request for adjournment to provide the required documentation, which was opposed by the Authorized Representative as a delay tactic.

Issue 5: Allegation of deliberate delay by appellants in disposal of appeals
The Tribunal noted a deliberate pattern of delay by the appellants in the disposal of appeals, evident from the extended timeline of the case and the Proxy Counsel's appearance without proper authorization. The failure to produce the Vakalatnama within the given time frame, despite prior warnings, was seen as a deliberate attempt to impede the progress of the case. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed again for non-prosecution due to the appellants' repeated delays and lack of genuine effort to pursue the matter effectively.

---