ORDER A. R. TIWARI, J. : Identical relief of restoration, structured and spun on identical ground of non-availability of the senior counsel due to his having gone out of country at the relevant dates of dismissal of Misc. Civil Cases, supported by identical affidavit of the counsel whose instrument of appointment as pleader was not placed on record of those cases, is pressed in these cases, fifteen in number, analogously and is thus being considered in this common order. 2. Shunning prolixity, we may put the prologue. Dissatisfied by refusal of the Tribunal to state the case and refer the proposed question or questions under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the applicant filed Misc. Civil Cases under s. 256(2) of the Act which suffered mortality on account of non-appearance and failure to take necessary steps. 3. Right at the threshold it may be stated that the Misc. Civil Cases, dismissed in default, were registered on applications submitted under s. 256(2) of the Act. 4. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. Misc. Civil Case No. 368 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 46 of 1995 which was dismissed on 21st Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to pay process fee and supply of copies; Misc. Civil Case No. 369 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 590 of 1994 which was dismissed on 20th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance and on the ground that needful was not done; Misc Civil Case No. 370 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 676 of 1992 which was dismissed on 23rd Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to supply identical sets; Misc. Civil Case No. 371 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 164 of 1993 which was dismissed on 26th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to pay process fee and supply of copy; Misc. Civil Case No. 372 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 587 of 1994 which was dismissed on 20th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to file annexures and identical sets; Misc. Civil Case No. 373 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 372 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 587 of 1994 which was dismissed on 20th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to file annexures and identical sets; Misc. Civil Case No. 373 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 79 of 1995 which was dismissed on 21st Aug., 1996 in default of appearance and on failure to supply identical sets; Misc. Civil Case No. 374 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 23 of 1993 which was dismissed on 21st Aug., 1996 in default of appearance and on failure to supply identical sets; Misc. Civil Case No. 376 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 432 of 1994 which was dismissed on 29th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance and on failure to pay process fee; Misc. Civil Case No. 377 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 340 of 1993 which was dismissed on 29th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance and on failure of payment of P. F. and supply of copy; Misc. Civil Case No. 378 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 552 of 1994 which was dismissed on 26th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to pay process fee and supply of copy; Misc. Civil Case No. 379 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 588 of 1994 which was dismissed on 20th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance and on the ground that needful was not done; Misc. Civil Case No. 380 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 638 of 1992 which was dismissed on 23rd Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to supply of identical sets; Misc. Civil Case No. 381 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 421 of 1993 which was dismissed on 29th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to pay process fee; Misc. Civil Case No. 382 of 1993 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 490 of 1993 which was dismissed on 27th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to pay process fee and registered A. D. charges; and Misc. Civil Case No. 382 of 1993 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 490 of 1993 which was dismissed on 27th Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to pay process fee and registered A. D. charges; and Misc. Civil Case No. 383 of 1996 is filed for restoration of Misc. Civil Case No. 64 of 1995 which was dismissed on 21st Aug., 1996 in default of appearance as well as on failure to supply identical sets. 5. We have heard Shri A.M. Mathur, learned senior counsel with Shri Vivek Sharan, for the applicant/Revenue, on the question of admission of these cases. 6. There is no specific provision in the Act on the point of prayer for restoration. But every Court should be deemed to have "inherent powers" to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. This point is settled in the context of old Act i.e. IT Act, 1922 also. In Jaipure Mineral Development Syndicate vs. CIT (1977) 106 ITR 653 (SC), it is held that : "In exercising inherent power, the Courts cannot override the express provisions of law. Where however, as in the present case, there is no express or implied prohibition to recalling an earlier order made because of the absence of the party and to directing the disposal of the reference on merits, the Courts, in our opinion, should not be loath to exercise such power provided the party concerned approaches the Court with due diligence and shows sufficient cause for its non-appearance on the date of hearing." Power is, thus, available to "recall" order but on existence of "sufficient cause". 7. Sec. 256(1) of the Act enables the assessee or CIT to require the Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of its order and empowers the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer it to High Court on its satisfaction. On refusal, aggrieved party may resort to s. 256(2) of the Act for direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question or questions. The jurisdiction of the High Court, as held in A. Gasper vs. CIT AIR 1992 SC 147 is only advisory in nature. On refusal, aggrieved party may resort to s. 256(2) of the Act for direction to the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question or questions. The jurisdiction of the High Court, as held in A. Gasper vs. CIT AIR 1992 SC 147 is only advisory in nature. The party desirous of obtaining advice i.e. opinion is thus required to be vigilant and is expected to pursue such application with due diligence. 8. On receipt of application under s. 256(2) of the Act, the High Court may direct issuance of notice to the opposite party. 9. Civil Procedure Code prescribes the procedure which may be considered to appreciate the contentions : (i) Order XLVIII r. 1(1) lays down that : 1. Process to be served at expenses of party issuing. (1) Every process issued under this Code shall be served at the expenses of the party on whose behalf it is issued, unless the Court otherwise directs. (ii) Order IX rr. 2 and 4 provide that : 2. Dismissal of suit where summons not served in consequence of plaintiffs failure to pay costs : Where on the day so fixed it is found that the summons has not been served upon the defendant in consequence of the failure of the plaintiff to pay the Court-fee or postal charges (if any) chargeable for such service or to present copies of the plaint or concise statements, as required by r. 9 of Order VII, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed :" 3. Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may restore Suit to file : Where a suit is dismissed under r. 2 or r. 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit; or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for such failure as is referred to in r. 2 or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit." (iii) Order III rr. 4(1) and 6(2) contain that : 4. Appointment of pleader. 4(1) and 6(2) contain that : 4. Appointment of pleader. - (1) No pleader shall act for any person in any Court, unless he has been appointed for the purpose by such person by a document in writing signed by such person or by his recognised agent or by some other person duly authorised by or under a power-of-attorney to make such appointment." 6(2). Appointment to be in writing and to be filed in Court : Such appointment may be special or general and shall be made by an instrument in writing signed by the principal, and such instrument or, if the appointment is general, a certified copy thereof shall be filed in Court." (iv) Sec. 151, saving of inherent powers of the Court, mandates that : 151. Saving of inherent powers of Court. - Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court." 10. In Order IX r. 4 of the CPC the words "such failure as is referred to in rule 2" are substituted by CPC (Amendment) Act, 1976. The Court can recall the order and can set the dismissal aside on sufficient cause - Lachman vs. Devi 56 IC 884. It is, thus, clear that existence of sufficient cause, as noted earlier, is sine quo non for exercise of the powers. It does not and cannot depend on the will or mere assertion of the party in default. A lis has to be prosecuted without fault and default. The prayer for recall should be backed by cause considered sufficient. Absent this, the answer is bound to be "monosyllabic no". 11. So the core question imprimis is whether the applications under consideration show the sufficient cause.? We notice that the applications are signed by the counsel, Shri Vivek Sharan, on behalf of the applicant but instrument of his appointment as a pleader was never filed in the cases dismissed in default and on failure. Moreover, the application in each case contains an averment that senior counsel had gone out of country to Helsinki (Finland) to attend Law Associations Conference as Indian Delegate. It is a trite position that the senior counsel appears in the Court with his junior. Moreover, the application in each case contains an averment that senior counsel had gone out of country to Helsinki (Finland) to attend Law Associations Conference as Indian Delegate. It is a trite position that the senior counsel appears in the Court with his junior. But the application does not indicate as to why atleast the junior counsel or applicant himself did not or could not appear to make appropriate submission for what ever worth. The applications are also conspicuously silent about any cause, much less sufficient, for failure to take steps, despite prodigious number of adjournments in some cases to do the needful, as directed. No cause is, thus, shown for non-appearance as well as for failure to do the needful. In the face of absence of cause for failure, the question of non-appearance becomes insignificant. 12. Moreover, we noted in orders passed in Misc. Civil Cases No. 676 of 1992 and Misc. Civil Case No. 638 of 1992 that the question proposed in regard to s. 43B is already answered by this Court in several Misc. Civil Cases against the Department. We do not understand the propriety of filing Misc. Civil Case No. 370 of 1996 and Misc. Civil Case No. 380 of 1996 respectively for restoration of even these two cases. 13. In a case under IT Act, the Supreme Court held in Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO AIR 1977 SC 429 as under : "At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversy as it must in other spheres of human activity." 14. In cases on hand, filed between 1992 and 1995, the applicant, despite adjournment and caution in some cases, took no steps to pay process fee or take other necessary steps. This manifested gross negligence. These applications are now filed without even pleading, much less offering any material in support of sufficient cause. 15. These cases, thus, reflect gross negligence. There is failure on the part of the applicant to show due diligence and comply with the directions issued by this Court. Law does not permit a state of hibernation of cases in this manner. 16. 15. These cases, thus, reflect gross negligence. There is failure on the part of the applicant to show due diligence and comply with the directions issued by this Court. Law does not permit a state of hibernation of cases in this manner. 16. We may, however, add that in the face of prolonged failure to take steps, we would have found it rather difficult to show further indulgence by granting more time and thus by granting further adjournments even when some one would have appeared on behalf of the applicant on the date of dismissal of the cases. The question is not one of non-appearance only, but of failure to take steps and thus, of utter disregard to the opportunities granted by this Court to do the needful. 17. In view of the aforesaid position, we are satisfied that no sufficient cause is made out for allowing the prayer Ex voto and recall the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid Misc. Civil Cases and to set the dismissal aside. We know that such prayers should be considered liberally, but the facts as unfolded in these cases clinched the issue against the applicant and did not justify revival of the cases dismissed in default. 18. In the circumstances, we decline admission and dismiss these applications summarily. 19. Retain this order in the record of Misc. Civil Case No. 368 of 1996 and place its copy each in the records of other connected Misc. Civil Cases, as particularised above, for ready reference.