Appeal restored after registry failed to place adjournment application before Bench despite timely filing

CESTAT New Delhi allowed restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. Appellant had filed adjournment application on 24th August 2023, received by registry, but not placed before Bench on hearing date 1st September 2023. While no irregularity found in dismissal order, registry failed to provide satisfactory explanation for non-placement of adjournment application. Court held interests of justice require deciding matters on merits rather than technicalities, restored appeal with direction for final hearing on 2nd July 2024 with no further adjournments permitted.

---

---

Issues involved: Restoration of appeal dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to consider written request for adjournment.

Summary:
The present judgment deals with the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for want of prosecution without considering a written request for adjournment. The appellant's counsel had sent a request for adjournment on 24.08.2023 due to prior commitments, but the appeal was dismissed on 01.09.2023 as no one appeared for the appellant. The Registrar was directed to investigate why the adjournment request was not presented before the Bench on the date of the final order. The subsequent report revealed that the Court Master failed to bring the adjournment application to the notice of the Bench. Despite certain lacunae in the report, the application seeking restoration of the appeal was heard.

Upon hearing the arguments, it was noted that the impugned final order was passed due to the absence of the appellant on 1st September, 2023, without any request for adjournment. The report from the Registrar confirmed the failure to present the adjournment application before the Bench. However, it was found that the application seeking adjournment was received by the registry on 24th August, 2023. As there was no satisfactory explanation for why the application was not placed on record, the appeal was restored to allow the appellant an opportunity to present their case on the merits. The judgment emphasized deciding the case on its merits rather than technicalities.

In conclusion, the application for restoration of the appeal was allowed, and the appeal was ordered to be listed for final hearing on July 02, 2024, with no further opportunities to be provided.

---