[2025:JHHC:24953] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.924 of 2022 ------ Asrita Horo, aged about 70 years, wife of Markus Horo, resident of village Bano, P.O. and P.S. Bano, District- Simdega. … Petitioner Versus 1. Gul Mohammad Quareshi, son of late Rahmatullah Quareshi, resident of village Bano, P.O. and P.S. Bano, District Simdega. 2. Deupty Commissioner, Simdega, P.O. & P.S. Simdega, District- Simdega. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Tiwari, SC I Mr. Sachin Kumar, AC to SC I Mr. Jay Prakash Pandey, Advocate ------ Order No:-06 Dated:-22-08-2025 I.A. No.4876 of 2024 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 132 days in filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition. It is next submitted that the petitioner lives in a remote area and she could not contact her lawyer and the lawyer also could not contact her immediately after dismissal of Second Appeal No.63 of 2009 and by the time, the petitioner could be contacted by the lawyer, the delay had already occurred. It is further submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in this Civil Miscellaneous Petition. Hence, it is submitted that unless the delay of 132 days in filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is condoned, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has no serious objection to the prayer of the petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts, the delay of 132 days in filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is condoned. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P. No.924 of 2022 This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for restoration of S.A. No.63 of 2009 to its original file which stood dismissed for default vide order dated 22.06.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that S.A. No.63 of 2009 stood dismissed for default vide order dated 22.06.2022. It is next submitted that S.A. No.63 of 2009 was listed before this Bench on 22.06.2022 but due to bonafide mistake on the part of the office of the Advocate concerned, no one turned up on behalf of the appellant, when the second appeal was called for; which resulted in dismissal of the said S.A. No.63 of 2009 for default. It is next submitted that the nonappearance of the appellant was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No.63 of 2009 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No.63 of 2009 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, S.A. No.63 of 2009 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.63 of 2009 before the appropriate Bench after a week. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/