IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.788 of 2022 ------ 1. Ram Rai Soren, aged about 39 Years. 2. Kirtal Soren, aged about 29 Years. 3. Lal Soren, aged about 28 Years, All son of Rai Soren @ Sona Rai Manjhi, Resident of village- Kocha, P.S.- Baghbera, P.O.- Baghbera, District- East Singhbhum 4. Sukur Soren, aged about 52 Years, W/o Late Binod Manjhi, Resident of village- Kocha, P.S.- Baghbera, P.O.- Baghbera, District- East Singhbhum 5. Dara Singh, aged about 47 Years, S/o Late Bhagla Manjhi, S/o Ram Sai Manjhi, Resident of village- Kocha, P.S.- Baghbera, P.O.- Baghbera, District- East Singhbhum … Petitioner Versus 1. Duli Murmu, wife of Chotrai Murmu, Resident of village- Kocha, P.O. & P.S.- Bagbera, Dist.- East Singhbhum 2. Sain Murmu S/o Late Chtrai Murmu, Resident of Village- Purihassa, P.O. & P.S.- Sunder Nager, East Singhbhum. 3. Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S.- Sakchi, Town- Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate ------ Order No:-09 Dated:-21-02-2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of S.A. No.61 of 2013 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 04.07.2022 passed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that S.A. No.61 of 2013 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 04.07.2022 passed by this Court to file the proof of deposit of Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). It is next submitted that due to miscommunication, the petitioners could not comply with the said order within the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the said S.A. No.61 of 2013. It is next submitted that non- compliance of the said order dated 04.07.2022 within the stipulated time was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No.61 of 2013 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No.61 of 2013 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties have not raised any serious objection. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No.61 of 2013 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal. Registry is directed to list S.A. No.61 of 2013 before the concerned Bench after a week. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/