IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.750 of 2024 ------ 1. Shree Sao alias Shri Sao, aged about 72 years, S/o, Beni Saw, 2. Krishna Sao aged about 67 years, S/o Beni Saw, both are R/o Village- Nakainiya, P.O.-Kamgarpur, P.S.-Hussainabad, District-Palamau, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Additional Collector Palamau, PO & PS-Sadar, District-Palamau, 3. The Deputy Collector Land Reforms Palamu, PO & PS-Sadar, District- Palamau, 4. The Circle Officer, Hussainabad, PO & PS-Hussainabad, District- Palamau, 5. Shanti Devi, W/o Ram Krishna Mehta, R/o Village-Jamuwa, Tola Amhi, PO-Kamgarpur, PS-Hussainabad, District-Palamau, 6. Shambhu Saw, S/o Late Beni Sao, R/o Village-Nekeniya, PO- Kamgarpur, PS-Hussainabad, District-Palamau, … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mrs. Diksha Rani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC-(Mines)-I : Mr. D.K. Roy, AC to SC-(Mines)-I For the OP 5 & 6 : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-05 Dated:-21-02-2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 23.01.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 stood dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 23.01.2024. It is next submitted that W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 was listed before this Bench on 23.01.2024 and the learned counsel for the petitioners could not mark the case, hence, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not turn up when W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 was called out; which resulted in dismissal of the said W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018. It is next submitted that non-prosecution of the said order dated 23.01.2024 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.5 and 6 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 and submits that the opposite party No. 5 and 6 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No. 5 and 6 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party No. 5 and 6 through his counsel within two weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioners pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party No. 5 and 6 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and W.P.(C) No.2866 of 2018 shall remain dismissed. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/