Challenges in Appeal Restoration Due to Non-Prosecution: Lack of Provision under PMLA

The appeal for restoration, dismissed for non-prosecution, faced challenges due to the appellant's failure to appear on specified dates and the lack of a specific provision for restoration under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Despite the delay in filing the restoration application and mischievous filing allegations, the appellant sought restoration citing pending main cases before the Tribunal and the need to avoid frustration of the case. The application for stay on property vacation was dismissed as possession had already been taken, with the order allowing restoration of the appeal upon payment of costs within a specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
2. Grounds for restoration of appeal.
3. Mischievous filing of restoration application.
4. Failure to appear on specified dates.
5. Lack of specific provision for restoration of appeal.
6. Delay in filing restoration application.
7. Justification for restoration of appeal.
8. Application for stay on property vacation.

Issue 1: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution
The applicant filed an application for the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The grounds for restoration included the non-receipt of hearing notices and lack of awareness about the next hearing date. The applicant claimed that the non-appearance was inadvertent and requested restoration in the interest of justice, citing pending main cases before the Tribunal.

Issue 2: Grounds for restoration of appeal
The applicant argued that the appeal dismissal was due to the non-receipt of notices and lack of uploading interim orders on the website. The applicant's counsel admitted to not filing a vakalatnama for the present applicant in the appeal. The respondent contended that the restoration application was mischievously filed, and the dismissal was justified due to the appellant's failure to appear on multiple dates.

Issue 3: Mischievous filing of restoration application
The respondent alleged that the restoration application was mischievously filed after suppressing relevant facts. The appellant and counsel's failure to appear on specified dates was highlighted, leading to the dismissal for non-prosecution. The respondent argued that there was no specific provision under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act for the restoration of the appeal.

Issue 4: Failure to appear on specified dates
The appellant and counsel failed to appear on several dates, as noted by the respondent. The dismissal of the appeal was deemed justified due to the lack of sufficient cause for non-appearance. The respondent emphasized that the appellant's application lacked merit and deserved dismissal.

Issue 5: Lack of specific provision for restoration of appeal
While there was no specific provision under the PMLA for the restoration of the appeal, Section 35(2) empowered the Appellate Tribunal to set aside orders of dismissal for default. The respondent argued against restoration, highlighting the appellant's repeated non-appearances and lack of grounds for restoration.

Issue 6: Delay in filing restoration application
The restoration application was filed beyond the 30-day period for filing, without a specific application for condonation of delay. The appellant pleaded for condonation of delay, citing lack of awareness about the order due to non-uploading on the website. The appellant sought to condone any delay in the interest of justice.

Issue 7: Justification for restoration of appeal
The appellant contended that the appeal had merit, and the connected appeals being pending before the Tribunal supported the restoration application. The appellant claimed to be a scapegoat and emphasized the importance of hearing the appeal on its merits to avoid frustration of the case.

Issue 8: Application for stay on property vacation
An application for stay was filed due to the vacation of the property, but it was dismissed as the possession had already been taken. The appellant's family members were evicted, leading to the stay application being deemed infructuous. The order allowed for the restoration of the appeal subject to the payment of costs to the respondent within a specified timeframe.

---