( 2025:JHHC:29107 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.157 of 2025 ------ 1. Sanjay Mondal aged about 32 years, 2. Durjodhan Mondal aged about 31 years, Both s/o Gopal Mondal, Both R/o Village Naryanpur, Tola Bhagabazar, P.O.- Nagarayanpur, P.S.-Pindrajora & District-Bokaro. … Petitioner Versus 1. Kashi Nath Mandal, 2. Dubraj Mandal, 3. Prayag Mandal Sl. No. 1 to 3 S/o Late Khudiram Mandal. 4. Bhuneshwar Mandal, 5. Amar Mandal, 6. Prameshwar Mandal Sl. No.4 to 6 S/o Heram Mandal. All residents of Village Narayanpur, Tola Bhanga Bazar, P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.-Pindrajora & District-Bokaro. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Ms. Chanchal Jain, Advocate For the OPs : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate : Ms. Taru Gupta, Advocate ------ Order No:-04 Dated:-19-09-2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for restoration of Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 to its original file which stood abated by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 which stood abated by this Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 for non-substitution of the legal heirs/representatives of the sole respondent namely Satyabati Devi who died on 06.06.2024 during the pendency of the said Second Appeal. It is next submitted that after the death of the said Satyabati Devi, the appellants had filed I.A. No.11364 of 2024 for substitution of her legal representatives and the counsel for the appellants informed the appellants and requested them to come to High Court to swear the Affidavit so that the said interlocutory application for substitution of the deceased sole respondent could be filed but the appellants informed their counsel that they are out of station and shall come to swear the Affidavit as soon as they would be back, however they could not come within next one week and in the meanwhile the said Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 was listed on 25.10.2024 and in view of the fact that the substitution petition was not filed by the appellants, the said Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 abated by this Hon’ble Court for non- filing of the said substitution petition. It is next submitted that non- filing of the substitution petition was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties oppose the prayer for restoration of the said Second Appeal No.95 of 2022. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the facts of this case, Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 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 Second Appeal No.95 of 2022 before the concerned Bench after a week. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 19/09/2025 Abhiraj/