Condonation of delay refused where a litigant delayed recall and restoration proceedings without diligence and relied on paper-book rules

Limitation for a recall and restoration application was computed from receipt of the earlier judgment and order, not from the later recovery notice. The applicant had been served at an interlocutory stage, failed to prosecute the matter diligently, and sought condonation after an unexplained belated delay without even specifying the exact delay. The Court held that such conduct could not be justified by relying on the High Court's paper-book rules, which did not excuse non-diligence or revive an otherwise stale application. The delay was not condoned and the application for recalling the judgment and restoring the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the application for recalling the judgment and order and for restoration of the appeal should be condoned and the application entertained.

Analysis: The limitation for the recall application had to be computed from the date on which the earlier judgment and order was received, not from the date of the recovery notice. The applicant relied on the High Court's Original Side Rules, including the provisions relating to preparation and filing of paper books and the consequence of non-compliance. The Court found that the applicant had been served at an interlocutory stage long ago, had not prosecuted the matter diligently, and had approached the Court at a belated stage without even specifying the exact number of days of delay. In these circumstances, the applicant could not invoke the paper-book rules to justify the delay.

Conclusion: The delay was not condoned and the application for recalling and restoration was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A party that has not prosecuted the matter diligently and approaches the Court after an unexplained and belated delay cannot seek indulgence for condonation merely by relying on procedural paper-book rules.

---