Bona fide registry non-compliance, supported by sufficient cause, warrants restoration of contempt proceedings.

The applicants sought restoration of Contempt Case (C) No. 825 of 2026, which the Registry treated as dismissed after they failed to cure a defect within the time granted by the Court.

The defect required filing a fresh Vakalatnama bearing the signature of a concerned party.

The applicants explained that they had been unable to file it within the stipulated period and sought restoration, undertaking to cure the defect within a further week.

The Court considered the applicants’ explanation and the material on record.

Whether sufficient cause had been shown to restore Contempt Case (C) No. 825 of 2026 after non-compliance with the Registry’s defect requirements.

Whether restoration could be made subject to curing the defects within a further specified period.

No statute or precedent is identified in the order.

The Court applied the principle that a matter treated as dismissed for procedural non-compliance may be restored where sufficient cause for the default is shown; it considered whether the non-compliance was bona fide and inadvertent.

The Court accepted the applicants’ explanation that they had not furnished the required fresh Vakalatnama within the prescribed time and noted their willingness to cure the defect.

It found the non-compliance bona fide and inadvertent and concluded that the explanation constituted sufficient cause for restoration.

The Court made restoration conditional on curing the defects within ten days.

The MCC was disposed of accordingly.