https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314361 The petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause or bona fides for condonation of delay and restoration where the suit had been repeatedly dismissed for default and earlier restored, reflecting prolonged laxity in prosecution. The Trial Court found the applications defective because they did not give particulars of the delay, offered no credible explanation for non-appearance, and even included a restoration application in the name of a deceased plaintiff. Counsel's alleged oversight or inadvertence was held inadequate, so the refusals to condone delay and restore the matter were upheld. en-us Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jun 2024 19:29:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314361 The petitioners failed to establish sufficient cause or bona fides for condonation of delay and restoration where the suit had been repeatedly dismissed for default and earlier restored, reflecting prolonged laxity in prosecution. The Trial Court found the applications defective because they did not give particulars of the delay, offered no credible explanation for non-appearance, and even included a restoration application in the name of a deceased plaintiff. Counsel's alleged oversight or inadvertence was held inadequate, so the refusals to condone delay and restore the matter were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314361