The Tribunal held that delay in filing a restoration application beyond the 30-day limit under Rule 48 can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act if sufficient cause is shown, and the Appellate Tribunal will not interfere with such a discretionary order.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

1.26.05.2026 This Appeal has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2026 passed in Restoration Application No. 30 of 2026. The application filed under Section 95 was dismissed for non-appearance of the Counsel on 14.01.2026. Restoration Application No. 30 of 2026, which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 09.04.2026, reads as follows:

“Restoration Application/30/2026-

1. The present Application is filed seeking restoration of C.P.(IB) No. 366(MB)/2023, which was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 14.01. 2026. It is submitted that the on 14.01.2026, due to a sudden medical emergency suffered by the Applicant's counsel, appearance could not be made, resulting in dismissal of the Petition. The non-appearance was neither deliberate nor due to negligence, but was caused by circumstances beyond control. The dismissal is based on a solitary instance of non- appearance, and if allowed to stand, would cause grave prejudice to the Applicant.

2. Considering that the request appears to be genuine and necessary, the matter is directed to be restored to its original number. Accordingly, Restoration Application No. 30/2026 is allowed. The CP may be listed on 03.06.2025.”

2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Applicant itself has prayed for condonation of the delay in filing the Restoration Application since the application was filed after 30 days.

3. We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and perused the application.

4. The Application has been filed for Restoration to recall the order by which application was dismissed for non-prosecution. It contains the explanation as to why the application is filed with a delay of 21 days. The reason given in the application is that the Applicant’s Counsel had a sudden medical emergency, due to which he could not appear and plead the matter before Court. We do not find any ground on which this Tribunal can exercise its Appellate Jurisdiction with respect to an order by which the restoration application has been allowed.

5. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submitted that under Rule 48, when application is filed beyond 30 days, it cannot be entertained. Rule 48 provides as follows:

“1) Where on the date fixed for hearing of the petition or application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant does not appear when the petition or the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion, either dismiss the application for default or hear and decide it on merit.

(2) Where the petition or application has been dismissed for default and the applicant files an application within thirty days from the date of dismissal and satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the petition or the application was called for hearing, the Tribunal shall make an order restoring the same:

Provided that where the case was disposed of on merits the decision shall not be re-opened.”

6. When we look into the Restoration Application, the affidavit filed by the Applicant gives the reasons as to why the application was not filed within 30 days. In Para-3 of the application, following was stated:

“3. The captioned Company Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 14.01.2026. The present Restoration Application ought to have been filed within 30 days, i.e., on or before 13.02.2026; however, it is being filed on 06.03.2026, resulting in a delay of 21 days. The delay occurred as the case papers were required to be sent to the Applicant Bank's concerned office at Pune fo