https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301985 A mere order to proceed ex parte is procedural and does not amount to a final adjudication; limitation for restoration runs from the order affecting rights, understood as the date of actual or constructive communication. On that basis, a restoration application filed within fifteen days of the final ex parte order was treated as timely and not barred by limitation. The finding that sufficient cause existed for restoration was a factual determination, affirmed in revision, and was not open to interference in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional or manifest legal error. The writ petition was therefore without merit, and the restoration order remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Jul 2025 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301985 A mere order to proceed ex parte is procedural and does not amount to a final adjudication; limitation for restoration runs from the order affecting rights, understood as the date of actual or constructive communication. On that basis, a restoration application filed within fifteen days of the final ex parte order was treated as timely and not barred by limitation. The finding that sufficient cause existed for restoration was a factual determination, affirmed in revision, and was not open to interference in writ jurisdiction absent jurisdictional or manifest legal error. The writ petition was therefore without merit, and the restoration order remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301985