The court found that the plaintiff had not taken any steps to prosecute the suit since 8th May 2013, and that the delay was inordinate and unexplained. The plaintiff’s counsel had expressly urged the court to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution, and his subsequent attempt to reverse that position was found to be dishonest. Both parties had failed to prosecute their respective claims, but the primary blame for the delay rested with the plaintiff. The court held that the discretion to reinstate a suit dismissed for want of prosecution is not available where the delay is prolonged, inexcusable, and not attributable to inadvertence or excusable mistake. Reinstating the suit would offend the overriding objective of expeditious justice. Accordingly, the application for reinstatement was dismissed, with each party to bear its own costs.