IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 887 of 2024 ------ Arun Kumar, aged about 59 years, son of late Nand Kishor, resident of Dindli Bastee, Daspara, Hari Mandir Road, P.O. & P.S.-Adityapur, Dist.-Seraikella-Kharsawan, Jharkhand … Petitioner Versus 1. Sarita Bharti, wife of late Arjun Kumar Prasad, resident of H. No. 10, Block -4, Line No.1, Shastrinagar, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum 2. Aman Kumar, son of late Arjun Kumar Prasad 3. Swati Kumari, daughter of late Arjun Kumar Prasad Both resident of Kadma, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-Singhbhum East 4. Arvind Kumar, son of late Nand Kishor, resident of Farm Area, Road No. 23, Q. No.10, Opposite Jusco School Main Gate, Kadma, P.O. & P.S.-Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.- East Singhbhum 5. Sarita verma, daughter of late Nand Kishor, resident of Sabita Apartment, 5th Floor, Dimna Main Road, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, Town Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum, At present of N 3/2, Vatika Green City, Dimna Road, Mango, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Dist.-East Singhbhum … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Bajrang Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ajeet Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 21.03.2025 Heard the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of M.A. No. 265 of 2020 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that M.A. No. 265 of 2020 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order of filing requisites. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to unavailability of correct and present address of the respondent no.4, the said requisites could not be filed within the stipulated time and the same resulted in dismissal of M.A. No. 265 of 2020. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said M.A. No. 265 of 2020 and unless M.A. No. 265 of 2020 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the M.A. No. 265 of 2020 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.A. No. 265 of 2020 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List M.A. No. 265 of 2020 under the appropriate heading after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/