https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465389 A restoration application filed after limitation was held not entertainable where no accompanying condonation of delay application was filed and the applicant failed to disclose when knowledge of the dismissal was acquired. The court found the explanation for non-appearance and the delayed request insufficient, and held that both the delay and the absence leading to dismissal had to be satisfactorily explained before restoration could be allowed. Reliance on other decisions was rejected as factually inapplicable, and the refusal to restore the matrimonial petition was sustained. en-us Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Dec 2025 11:11:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465389 A restoration application filed after limitation was held not entertainable where no accompanying condonation of delay application was filed and the applicant failed to disclose when knowledge of the dismissal was acquired. The court found the explanation for non-appearance and the delayed request insufficient, and held that both the delay and the absence leading to dismissal had to be satisfactorily explained before restoration could be allowed. Reliance on other decisions was rejected as factually inapplicable, and the refusal to restore the matrimonial petition was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=465389