Delay and laches barred restoration where no reliable proof of earlier filing or due diligence was shown.

The restoration application was rejected as hopelessly delayed because the record did not reliably prove that any earlier restoration request had been filed in January 2014. The later application filed in March 2021 was inconsistent with the claim of an earlier filing, since it proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not received the dismissal order. The Court also noted repeated absence before the assessing and revisional authorities, and held that the explanation did not demonstrate real diligence in pursuing the matter. The application was therefore treated as barred by delay and laches and was correctly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the restoration application against the order dismissing the revision petition for default was rightly rejected as hopelessly delayed and unsupported by reliable proof of earlier filing.

Analysis: The record did not establish, with reliable evidence, that any restoration application had been filed in January 2014. The later application filed in March 2021 proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had not received the earlier dismissal order, which was inconsistent with the claim of an earlier restoration request. The Court also noted that the petitioner had repeatedly remained absent before the assessing and revisional authorities, and that the explanation offered did not show any real diligence in pursuing the matter.

Conclusion: The restoration application was rightly treated as hopelessly barred by delay and laches and was correctly rejected.

---