Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance justified restoration and fresh hearing after the tribunal accepted the explanation as genuine.

A restoration application dismissed for non-appearance was considered on the basis of whether the appellant had shown sufficient cause for counsel's absence and a bona fide intent to contest the matter. The tribunal accepted the explanation that counsel had been engaged before the Supreme Court on one date and was unwell on an earlier date, found the supporting material credible, and treated the non-appearance as sufficiently explained. It also noted that no prejudice would result from restoring the matter and granting both sides a hearing. The matter was therefore revived for fresh consideration after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the restoration application for non-appearance was liable to be set aside on the ground that the appellant had shown sufficient explanation for the absence of counsel and sought an opportunity to contest the matter.

Analysis: The record showed that counsel had not appeared on the relevant dates, but the explanation offered was that he was engaged before the Supreme Court on one date and was also absent on an earlier date due to ill health. The Tribunal accepted the service position, noted the supporting material, and found the explanation for non-appearance to be genuine and sufficient. It further considered that the appellant intended to contest the matter bona fide and that no prejudice would be caused by restoring the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both sides.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside, the restoration application was revived, and the matter was directed to be decided afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

---