Restoration of contempt petition allowed after condonation of delay, with technical default not treated as grounds to end proceedings.

Delay of 374 days in filing a restoration application was condoned because the applicants showed sufficient cause through medical uments, and the explanation was not seriously disputed. The contempt petition, dismissed for default, was restored because contempt proceedings are meant to secure compliance with an earlier order and should not be terminated on technical non-prosecution where registry defects had not been fully cured. The impugned orders were set aside, and the contempt matter was revived for consideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 374 days in filing the restoration application deserved condonation; (ii) Whether the order dismissing the contempt petition for default warranted recall and restoration of the contempt petition to its original number.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 374 days in filing the restoration application deserved condonation.

Analysis: The explanation offered for the delay was founded on the serious medical conditions of the applicants and was supported by documents placed on record. The delay application was to be assessed on its own merits, and the medical grounds were not seriously disputed. In such circumstances, the delay in moving the restoration application constituted sufficient cause for condonation.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the order dismissing the contempt petition for default warranted recall and restoration of the contempt petition to its original number.

Analysis: A contempt proceeding is not to be treated as an ordinary lis between private parties, and dismissal for want of prosecution is not appropriate where the proceeding had not effectively matured because registry objections and defects had not been cured. The alleged default was technical in nature, and the contempt petition, being directed to enforcement of the earlier order, should have been considered on merits rather than terminated for non-prosecution. Once the delay in seeking restoration was condoned, the restoration application also merited acceptance.

Conclusion: The contempt petition was ordered to be restored in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside, the delay was condoned, and the contempt proceedings were revived for consideration on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A contempt petition should not be dismissed for want of prosecution on technical defects where the defects have not been finally cured and sufficient cause is shown for delayed restoration; in such cases, restoration and adjudication on merits are warranted.

---