Restoration order upheld where time was extended only to preserve rights and abatement remained open for later decision.

An order extending time to take steps for restoration of a company application, and consequentially restoring the appeal, was upheld because it merely preserved the parties' rights and did not finally decide abatement. The Single Judge expressly kept open the appellant's ability to contest the appeal and the supporting restoration affidavit before the Company Court. Since the appellant's objections could still be raised in the pending proceedings, the exercise of discretion was found neither perverse nor prejudicial. The challenge to the restoration order was therefore rejected and no interference was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order extending time to restore the company application and consequentially restoring the appeal called for interference, and whether the appellant's rights were prejudiced by that order.

Analysis: The order under challenge only extended time to take steps for restoration of the company application and expressly reserved the appellant's right to raise all contentions, including objections to the appeal and the affidavit filed in support of restoration. The decision on abatement was deferred to an appropriate stage, and the appellant's intervention was kept open before the Company Court. The exercise of discretion by the Single Judge was held to be neither perverse nor prejudicial, especially since the appellant's concerns could be raised in the pending proceedings.

Conclusion: The challenge to the restoration order was rejected and no interference was called for.

---