Restoration Requires Sufficient Cause for Both Delay and Nonappearance.

The Appellant challenged a decree dated 22 July 2024 awarding the Respondent Rs. 25,91,892, with costs and interest.

After notice was issued, the High Court stayed operation of the decree subject to deposit of the decretal amount and up-to-date interest; the Appellant asserted that it complied.

The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 8 January 2026, after the Appellant was unrepresented that day and the Court recorded non-appearance on the preceding three hearing dates.

The Appellant sought restoration under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC and condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

It attributed the missed hearing and subsequent delay to flooding and emergency relocation of counsel’s office, which allegedly disrupted records and hearing-date tracking; it also said the dismissal came to counsel’s knowledge in August 2026.

The delay application contained inconsistent calculations of the delay.

1. Whether the Appellant had satisfactorily explained the delay in seeking restoration of the appeal.

2. Whether the Appellant had established sufficient cause for its non-appearance when the appeal was called for hearing, warranting restoration under Order XLI Rule 19 CPC.

Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 permits condonation of delay where sufficient cause is established; the applicant must provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Order XLI Rule 19 CPC provides for readmission of an appeal dismissed for default where sufficient cause for non-appearance is shown.

Section 151 CPC was invoked in the applications.

The Court stated that circumstances relied upon must credibly connect to the default, and reasonable diligence must be demonstrated after the impediment ceases; the desirability of a decision on the merits does not displace these requirements.

The Court found that the alleged flooding and relocation were described generally, without sufficient particulars about their duration, their effect on this appeal, or the steps taken to recover or reconstruct records and resume tracking hearing dates.

The explanation focused on the first week of January 2026 and did not account for the three earlier non-appearances recorded in the dismissal order.

Nor did the applications sufficiently explain the period after the alleged disruption, including when or how the dismissal was discovered in August 2026 and the subsequent steps leading to filing.

The inconsistent delay calculations further weakened the application when considered with the lack of a clear explanation, although the Court noted that a computational error alone would not necessarily warrant rejection.

The earlier deposit and the asserted merits of the appeal did not cure the failure to establish sufficient cause for the later defaults and delay.

It dismissed CM APPL. 70567/2026 for condonation of delay and, consequently, CM APPL. 70566/2026 for restoration; the appeal therefore remained dismissed under the order dated 8 January 2026.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the appeal.