Pre-deposit refusal and long-pending dispute led to restoration of appeal for hearing on merits without deposit.

Where an appeal had earlier been treated as prima facie arguable and recovery had been stayed, dismissal for non-compliance with a later pre-deposit direction was found inappropriate in the circumstances. The prolonged pendency of the dispute and the case posture made insistence on pre-deposit unsuitable, so the matter was required to be decided on merits. The lower order was set aside and the Commissioner was directed to hear the appeal without insisting on pre-deposit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the pre-deposit direction was justified and whether the matter should be restored for disposal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

Analysis: The appellant's case had earlier been considered prima facie arguable and the recovery proceedings had been stayed. The dismissal followed a later direction to deposit dues, but the circumstances showed that the dispute had remained pending for a long time and the prevailing situation was not conducive to resolving the appeal on that basis. In these circumstances, the insistence on pre-deposit was found inappropriate and the matter was required to be heard on merits.

Conclusion: The lower order was set aside and the Commissioner was directed to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on any pre-deposit.

---