Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is a petition filed under Artice 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellant of Appeal bearing No. E/893/90-B which was dismissed by CEGAT on 23-7-99 by their final order bearing No. 753/99-B. By this petition, the petitioner challenges an order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/1) passed by the CEGAT on an application made by the appellant refusing to restore the appeal which came to be dismissed in default on 23-7-99 by CEGAT. ( 2. ) BY means of this petition, the only grievance of the appellant i. e. petitioner herein is that their appeal ought not to have been dismissed in default on 23-7-99 and even if dismissed, the same ought to have been restored by allowing their application made by them for restoration of the appeal. It is this grievance which is reiterated by the petitioner in this writ petition which did not find favour to the CEGAT when the application for restoration of appeal was dismissed by impugned order dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/1 ). ( 3. ) IT is relevant to reproduce the order of the Tribunal dated 17-10-2001 (Annexure P/1) in extensio infra : "this is an application for restoration of the appeal filed by the applicants in appeal No. E/893/90-B1 against the Final Order No. 753/99-B, dated 23-7-99 dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, in spite of notice as per acknowledgment on record. 2. From para 3 of the application, it appears that the appeal was dismissed on 5-11-97 also for non-prosecution. Later on, the matter was restored and posted for hearing on 18-5-99. On the said date also, none has appeared on behalf of the applicants. The matter was again posted for hearing on 22-7-99, on which date also, none appeared on behalf of the applicants, despite service of notice on them. The Tribunal in these circumstances has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. 3. We have heard. . . of the Department. ( 4. ) THE conduct of the applicant does not merit to allow restoration application. As such, the restoration application is rejected. " 4. In my humble opinion the order impugned in this writ referred supra is self explanatory in nature and does not call for any interference. 3. We have heard. . . of the Department. ( 4. ) THE conduct of the applicant does not merit to allow restoration application. As such, the restoration application is rejected. " 4. In my humble opinion the order impugned in this writ referred supra is self explanatory in nature and does not call for any interference. Indeed what the Tribunal has observed while dismissing the restoration application appears to be perfectly justified and has to be upheld calling no interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 5. ) IT is on record as it emerges when one reads the impugned order that almost on all the dates of hearing, the petitioner did not appear in support of the appeal before the Tribunal. In other words they remained absent. In such state of affairs, what does the petitioner expect from the Tribunal to do except to dismiss the appeal or adjourn it. It was done by the Tribunal to accommodate the petitioner but even thereafter on none of the dates petitioner chose to despite service. ( 6. ) IT was thus a clear case where petitioner was not only granted indulgence on many occasion but it was a case where indulgence shown by the Tribunal was being exploited by the petitioner in not getting the appeal heard on merits. Under these circumstances the Tribunal was perfectly justified in dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution and was further justified in dismissing the application seeking restoration. There was neither a cause much less a sufficient cause of restoration of the order made out for recalling the order. Blaming a Lawyer who did not appear is no ground to recall the order nor does it constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Order 9. ( 7. ) I, therefore, while concurring with the view taken by the Tribunal which is based upon the sound discretion uphold the impugned order and as a consequence dismiss the petition in limine.