Vague and Substantiated Explanations for Delay Preclude Restoration of Appeal Where Diligence is Manifestly Lacking

The appellants preferred an appeal against an order of the First Appellate Court, which had dismissed their application for restoration of a title appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of the CPC.

The restoration was sought on the grounds that the original conducting appellant (appellant no. 3) died on April 21, 2020.

The appellants claimed they only contacted the heirs of the deceased on September 19, 2022, and cited subsequent delays due to Puja Vacations and the illness of appellant no. 2.

Additionally, they claimed the advocate’s brief was lost in a 2020 cyclone.

The High Court first condoned the delay in filing the present FMAT but proceeded to hear the merits of the restoration dismissal under Order XLI Rule 11.

1. Whether the appellants established "sufficient cause" for the restoration of the title appeal and the condonation of the underlying delay in the First Appellate Court.

2. Whether the First Appellate Court’s order dismissing the restoration application was legally sound.

Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the restoration of appeals dismissed for default.

Settled legal principle that while the duration of delay is not the sole germane factor, the "quality and sufficiency" of the cause shown is material in deciding applications for restoration and condonation of delay.

The Court observed a critical gap in the appellants' explanation for the delay. While the conducting appellant died in April 2020, there was no explanation for the two-and-a-half-year period of total inaction until September 2022.

The court noted that appellant nos. 1 and 2, being original parties themselves, failed to take any steps during this interim.

The court found the excuse regarding the 2020 cyclone irrelevant because the appeal was dismissed for default much later, on July 16, 2022.

The allegations of physical illness were also found to be unsubstantiated by any material documentary evidence.

Consequently, the court held that the lack of credible evidence and the unexplained "conspicuous" absence of action rendered the application meritless.

The High Court held that the appellants failed to provide a sufficient or credible explanation for the delay in the lower court.

Accordingly, the appeal (FMAT 234 of 2025) was dismissed under Order XLI Rule 11 of the CPC.

The stay application (CAN 2 of 2025) was dismissed as a consequence.

No order as to costs was made.