Sufficient cause for refiling delay and non-review of a deferred hearing order permit a later substantive direction to the liquidator.

A refiling delay may be condoned where the record shows sufficient cause, including change of counsel, continued pursuit by new counsel, and time spent curing registry defects, and the delay is not deliberate or wilful. An order that only defers hearing and does not decide the claim on merits does not amount to a review or modification of a concluded adjudication. A later direction to the liquidator to examine the claim with reference to the liquidation regulations is therefore permissible and does not call for interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the 103 days' refiling delay in the appeal deserved condonation; (ii) whether the impugned direction to the liquidator amounted to a review or modification of the earlier order.

Issue (i): Whether the 103 days' refiling delay in the appeal deserved condonation.

Analysis: The delay was attributed to change of counsel, subsequent pursuit of the matter by the new counsel, and time taken in removing registry defects. The record, including the vakalatnama, supported the explanation and showed that the delay was not deliberate or wilful. The explanation established sufficient cause for the delayed refiling.

Conclusion: The delay was rightly condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned direction to the liquidator amounted to a review or modification of the earlier order.

Analysis: The earlier order merely deferred hearing and did not decide the claim on merits. The later order directing the liquidator to take a view on the claim with reference to the liquidation regulations was therefore not a review or modification of any concluded adjudication. No error was shown in the direction issued by the Adjudicating Authority.

Conclusion: The impugned order was not a review or modification of the earlier order and called for no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, while the direction to the liquidator to comply with the Adjudicating Authority's order was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: An earlier order that merely adjourns or defers hearing without deciding the claim on merits does not bar a subsequent substantive direction on the same claim, and a refiling delay may be condoned on proof of sufficient cause.

---