( 2025:JHHC:29101 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.893 of 2019 ------ 1. Chhotan @ Chotu Pahan @ Chhotan Pahan, aged about 54 years, Son of Budhan Pahan. 2. Dhubraj Munda, aged about 52 years, son of Late Mangal Babu (Original Plaintiff/appellant no.2 namely Mangal Babu had died on 10.10.2018 leaving behind his son Dhubraj Munda, S/o Late Mangal Bubu). 3. Budhan Munda @ Budhanlal Babu, aged about 52 years. 4. Somra Munda @ Somra Babu, aged about 37 years. 5. Gurwa Munda @ Gurwa Babu, aged about 42 years. Petitioner No.3 to 5 are sons of Late Thakur Munda. 6. Raiya Babu @ Rayai Babu, aged about 76 years, son of Chaitan Babu. 7. Soma Babu, aged about 71 years, Son of Late Sukhram Babu. All residents of Village-Murpa Tota-Salgadih, P.S. + P.O.-Tamar, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Petitioners Versus 1.(a). Fagu Babu, vill-Murpa, Tola-Salagadih, Ranchi. 2.(a). Sonaram Babu 2.(b). Pusta Babu. Both sons of Late Jaina Babu, residents of Village-Murpa, Tola Salagadih, P.O. + P.S.-Tamar, District-Ranchi. 3. The State of Jharkhand through Deputy Commissioner, P.O. + P.S.-Sadar District, Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate For the OPs : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate : Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate : Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate ------ Order No:-11 Dated:-19-09-2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for restoration of F.A. No.106 of 2003 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 14.03.2018. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that F.A. No.106 of 2003 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 14.03.2018 by this Court. It is next submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioners tried to inform the petitioners about the order by which cost was directed to be paid to the respondents, but the learned counsel for the petitioners could not get in contact with the petitioners as the petitioner no.1 had gone out of village, hence, the said payment of cost of Rs.500/- could not paid to the opposite parties by the petitioners within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said F.A. No.106 of 2003 for non-compliance. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the order dated 14.03.2018 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said F.A. No.106 of 2003 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the F.A. No.106 of 2003 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts of this case, F.A. No.106 of 2003 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 F.A. No.106 of 2003 before the concerned Bench after a week. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 19/09/2025 Abhiraj/