( 2025:JHHC:19013 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 922 of 2024 ----- 1. Indu Devi, W/o Late Sushanto Pradhan, Aged 55 years 2. Sandeep Pradhan, S/o Late Sushanto Pradhan, Aged 37 years 3. Dinesh Pradhan, S/o Late Sushanto Pradhan, Aged 33 years, All R/o village –Asangi, P.O. –Adityapur, P.S. –RIT, District –Seraikella-Kharsawan. … Petitioners Versus 1. Sharda Devi, W/o Late Sitanath Gour 2. Ashok Kumar Pradhan, S/o Late Sitanath Gour 3. Dilip Pradhan, S/o Late Sitanath Gour All residents of Village Asangi, P.O. –Adityapur, P.S.- R.I.T., Dist.-Seraikela, Kharsawan. 4. Urmila Devi, D/o Late Sitanath Gour, W/o Phool Chand Pradhan, R/o –Vill –Bhilai Pahari, P.O.-Mango, P.S.- M.G.M. Mango, Jamshedpur, Dist.-East Singhbhum 5. Chandantula Devi, D/o Late Sitanath Gour, W/o Moti Lal Pradhan, R/o –Vill.-Mangal Sahi, P.O. –Ualid Pokhar (Pokta), P.S. –Pokta, District –East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Harsh Tiwary, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate ------ Order No.07 Dated- 11.07.2025 Heard the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of S.A. No. 237 of 2017 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that S.A. No. 237 of 2017 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order of depositing cost of Rs.2000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to inadvertent reasons, the same could not be complied within the stipulated time and the same resulted in dismissal of S.A. No. 237 of 2017. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No. 237 of 2017 and unless S.A. No. 237 of 2017 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No. 237 of 2017 be restored to its original file. The learned counsel for the opposite parties opposes the prayer for restoration of S.A. No. 237 of 2017. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No. 237 of 2017 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List S.A. No. 237 of 2017 under the appropriate heading, before the appropriate Bench, after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/