1996 (9) TMI 84 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
- Restoration of miscellaneous civil cases under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
- Availability of inherent powers of the court for restoration.
- Requirement of "sufficient cause" for recalling an order.
- Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding dismissal and restoration of suits.
- Failure to show due diligence and compliance with court directions.
- Consideration of the principle of finality in legal proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the identical relief sought for restoration of miscellaneous civil cases under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to non-availability of senior counsel. The court emphasizes the need for "sufficient cause" to recall an order and the inherent powers of the court to prevent abuse of the judicial process. It highlights the importance of diligence in pursuing applications for reference to the High Court and the advisory nature of the High Court's jurisdiction in such matters.

The judgment delves into the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, such as Order IX, which allows for the dismissal and restoration of suits based on sufficient cause shown by the party. It also discusses the appointment of pleaders under Order III and the saving of inherent powers of the court under Section 151 of the Code.

Furthermore, the court scrutinizes the applications for restoration, noting the absence of sufficient cause for non-appearance and failure to take necessary steps in the dismissed cases. It points out the lack of diligence on the part of the applicant in complying with court directions and the filing of applications without offering any material to support sufficient cause.

In light of the prolonged negligence and failure to take required steps, the court concludes that no sufficient cause is established for the restoration of the dismissed cases. It emphasizes the principle of finality in legal proceedings and the need to prevent the reactivation of stale issues. The judgment ultimately declines admission to the applications and dismisses them summarily, citing the lack of justification for reviving the cases dismissed in default.