Restoration of statutory appeal restored after dismissal for want of prosecution was held unjustified and hyper-technical.

A statutory appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution merely because adjournment was sought, especially where the hearing had proceeded through video conference during the COVID-19 period. The Supreme Court found the rejection of restoration to be unjustified and hyper-technical, since no substantive ground supported refusal. Both impugned orders were set aside, the appeal was restored to the Tribunal's file, and the matter was remitted for disposal on merits with a direction to cooperate and avoid unwarranted adjournments.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the statutory appeal for want of prosecution and the rejection of the restoration application were sustainable.

Analysis: The appeal had been dismissed on the ground that counsel sought adjournment and was not willing to argue the matter, even though the hearing took place during the COVID-19 period and the order itself recorded that the matter had been heard through video conference. The rejection of the restoration application was found to be unjustified and hyper-technical.

Conclusion: Both impugned orders were set aside and the appeal was restored to the Tribunal's file.

Final Conclusion: The appellants obtained restoration of their statutory appeal before the Tribunal, and the matter was sent back for disposal on merits with a direction to cooperate and avoid unwarranted adjournments.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution merely because adjournment is sought, and a restoration application cannot be rejected on a hyper-technical approach where no substantive ground justifies such refusal.

---