An appeal dismissed for non-prosecution may be restored upon sufficient cause, subject to costs.

The applicants, Narmada Prasad and Tarachand, sought restoration of Second Appeal No. 543 of 2013, which had been dismissed for want of prosecution on 20.02.2026 because neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared when the matter was called for hearing.

The applicants stated that they had not remained in contact with their counsel for a considerable period, resulting in the counsel’s absence, and that the non-appearance was bona fide and inadvertent.

The restoration application was filed with a delay of 139 days. The Court first considered the application for condonation of delay and, on being satisfied with the reasons furnished, condoned the delay.

Whether the delay of 139 days in filing the restoration application should be condoned?

Whether sufficient cause was shown to recall the order dated 20.02.2026 dismissing Second Appeal No. 543 of 2013 for want of prosecution and to restore the appeal to its original number?

Whether restoration should be subject to payment of costs?

The Court applied the procedural principle that delay may be condoned where the applicant furnishes a satisfactory explanation and demonstrates sufficient cause.

It further applied the principle that an order dismissing an appeal for want of prosecution may be recalled and the appeal restored where the non-appearance is shown to be bona fide and inadvertent and sufficient cause is established.

In the interests of justice, restoration may be made conditional upon payment of costs.

The Court accepted the applicants’ explanation that their prolonged lack of contact with counsel caused the absence on the date fixed for hearing and treated the non-appearance as bona fide and inadvertent.

Having considered the explanation and the material on record, the Court was satisfied that sufficient cause existed both for condoning the 139-day delay and for restoring the dismissed appeal.

Nevertheless, to serve the interests of justice and compensate for the procedural default, the Court imposed costs as a condition of restoration.

The MCC was allowed; the dismissal order dated 20.02.2026 in Second Appeal No. 543 of 2013 was recalled, and the appeal was restored to its original number, subject to payment of ₹5,000 to the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association Library Fund.

The MCC was accordingly disposed of.