An application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default of appearance or want of prosecution or failure to pay costs of service of process must be made within 30 days from the date of dismissal. Under Section 5, Limitation Act such an application may be admitted after prescribed period if the applicant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

1. - This appeal was filed under Section 30 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sri Ganganagar dated January 31, 1984 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 19,200/- to the respondents on the death of her husband/their father, Gajanand. On August 25, 1987, the following order was passed :

"Hon'ble Shri N.C. Sharma, J.
Mr. B.C. Bhansali for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant wants time to file notices for Ghanshyam Singh and Sampat Singh, legal representatives of deceased respondent No. 1. He should do so within 5 days. In default whereof this miscellaneous appeal shall stand dismissed without reference to the court."

2. On September 1, 1987, the office reported that process fee and notices have not been filed. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) passed order on September 4, 1987, that the appeal stands dismissed. On May 2, 1989, an application under Order 41 Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code for the restoration of the appeal was moved stating that the appellant filed notices on August 31, 1987. Due to oversight the concerned clerk of the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur mentioned 'Defective' on it and as a result thereof the notices reached the defective Section of the High Court instead of Civil Section. An affidavit of Smt. Kiran Jain, U.D.C. of the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur has been filed in support of it. On December 19, 1989, an application under Section 5, Limitation Act was filed for condoning the delay in submitting the notices beyond the stipulated period. On March 27, 1990, additional affidavit of Smt. Kiran Jain was filed.

3. Arguments of the learned Government Advocate have been heard at length.

4. Admittedly, the said appeal stood dismissed on the expiry of 5 days from August 25, 1987 as per order dated August 25, 1987 and the restoration application was moved under Order 41 Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code on May 2, 1989. Application under section 5, Limitation Act for the condonation of delay was moved as late as on December 19, 1989. It runs as under :

"In continuation of the Application under Order 41, Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code dated 29.4.87 the State-appellant most respectfully submits this Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act with the prayer that the aforesaid previous Application dated 29.4.89 along with its Affidavit may kindly be treated as part of this Application and the delay so caused in submitting the notices beyond the stipulated period may kindly be condoned and the case may kindly be ordered to be listed at its original number as the delay so caused is due to rush of work without any ulterior motive."
It is thus clear that this application was moved for the condonation of delay occasioned in filing notices in compliance with the order dated August 25, 1987 and not for explaining the delay of about two years in moving the said application under Order 41 Rule 19, Civil Procedure Code.

5. Para No. 3 of the additional affidavit dated March 27, 1990 of Kiran Jain, U.D.C. of the office of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur runs as under :

"3. That only on 28.4.1989 it came to my notice through the Controller, Litigation, Joghpur that the aforesaid appeal has been dismissed for not filing the notices as ordered by the Hon'ble Court on 25.9.87 and immediately thereafter I brought this matter in the knowledge of the Government Advocate, Jodhpur and the restoration application was filed on 29.4.89 i.e. only after one day of the date of knowledge. Thus the delay in filing the restoration application is bonafide one and not an intentional one and deserves to be condoned."

The limitation under Article 122, Limitation Act, 1963 for moving an application for restoring an appeal dismissed for default of appearance or for want of prosecution or failure to pay costs of service of process in 30 days from the DATE OF DISMISSAL. Under Section 5, Limitation Act such an application may be admitted after presc