Statutory adjournment limit and non-prosecution rules justify dismissal when an appellant repeatedly fails to pursue the appeal.

Adjournment in appellate proceedings was restricted by the governing provision to not more than three occasions on sufficient cause, so repeated requests beyond that statutory ceiling were not justified. The Tribunal also applied its procedure rule on absence of the appellant and held that, where the appeal was not effectively prosecuted despite multiple listings and opportunities, it could be dismissed for default. On the facts, further indulgence was declined and the appeal was terminated for want of prosecution.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether adjournment could be granted beyond the statutory limit of three times under the governing provision. (ii) Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution under the tribunal procedure rules.

Issue (i): Whether adjournment could be granted beyond the statutory limit of three times under the governing provision.

Analysis: The governing provision permits adjournment only where sufficient cause is shown and expressly restricts adjournment to not more than three times to a party during hearing of the appeal. Repeated requests for adjournment, particularly after prior indulgence, do not justify further postponement beyond the statutory ceiling.

Conclusion: Further adjournment beyond three occasions was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution under the tribunal procedure rules.

Analysis: The appellant did not prosecute the appeal despite multiple listings and repeated opportunities. Under the procedure rule governing absence of the appellant, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for default when the appellant does not appear and does not effectively prosecute the matter. On the facts, the Tribunal found no justification to keep the matter pending any longer.

Conclusion: The appeal was liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal declined further indulgence and brought the appeal to an end by rejecting the request for adjournment and terminating the proceedings for want of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute caps adjournments at three and the appellant fails to prosecute the appeal despite repeated opportunities, the Tribunal may dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

---