Restoration of appeal allowed where pre-deposit was complied with and absence from hearing was bona fide

An appeal dismissed for alleged non-compliance with a pre-deposit condition and non-appearance can be restored where the appellant shows actual compliance with the stay order and a bona fide reason for absence. The restoration application succeeded because a bank guarantee had already been furnished and remained valid, and the failure to attend the hearing was explained by an adjournment request received by the registry on the same day. The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal revived for adjudication on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal dismissed for alleged non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement and default in appearance should be restored.

Analysis: The dismissal had been made on the ground of non-compliance with the pre-deposit condition and non-appearance on the hearing date. The application for restoration showed that a bank guarantee had already been furnished in compliance with the stay order and remained valid. The absence on the date of hearing was explained by an adjournment request that reached the registry on the same day, showing that the non-appearance was not deliberate.

Conclusion: The application for restoration was allowed and the appeal was restored for hearing.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal order was set aside and the appeal was revived for adjudication on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal dismissed for non-compliance and non-appearance may be restored where the appellant shows compliance with the stay condition and a bona fide explanation for absence.

---