[2025:JHHC:29157] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.1420 of 2023 ------ 1. M/S Shekhar & Shivi Group, New Matkuria Railway Colony, PO: Bhuli More, PS: Bankmore, District- Dhanbad Through proprietor Manas Prasun, S/o Sri Ram Pukar Rai, Resident of New Matkuria Railway Colony, PO: Bhuli More, PS: Bankmore, District- Dhanbad 2. Manas Prasun, aged about 44 years, son of Ram Pukar Rai, resident of New Matkuria Railway Colony, PO: Bhuli More, PS: Bankmore, District- Dhanbad … Petitioners Versus 1. State Bank of India, A body Corporate and duly constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act V of 1955 having its Head Office at Express Towers, Nariman Point, PO & PS: Nariman Point, District – Mumbay – 400021 (Maharashtra) and its Branch on and amongst other places at RASECC, Dhanbad, PO, PS & District- Dhanbad 2. Smt. Bigni Devi, wife of Sri Shivdut Chouhan, resident of Pure Bahagdih Colliery, PO & PS: Jharia, District- Dhanbad … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Rahul Kr. Gupta, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Surya Prakash, Advocate ------ Order No:-06 Dated:-19-09-2025 I.A. No.9091 of 2024 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 163 days in filing the instant C.M.P. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to inadvertence, the petitioners could not pay the cost of Rs.1,000/- to the respondents through their counsel appearing in the record. It is then submitted that cost has been paid by the petitioners to the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 acknowledges the receipt of Rs.1,000/-. It is also submitted that due to communication gap, the same could not be intimated to the petitioners and the petitioners were unaware about the same and by the time, the petitioners could be contacted and came to know that; the delay has already occurred. It is then submitted that the delay caused in filing the instant C.M.P. is neither deliberate nor intentional. It is then submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the First Appeal No.225 of 2017 and unless the delay in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the delay of 163 days in filing the instant C.M.P., be condoned. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 163 days in filing the instant C.M.P. is condoned. This interlocutory application is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P. No.1420 of 2023 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of F.A. No.225 of 2017 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.04.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that F.A. No.225 of 2017 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 27.04.2023. It is next submitted that time was allowed to the Appellants of F.A. No.225 of 2017 subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents through their counsel appearing in the record within four week from the date of that order but inadvertently, the same was written as eight weeks instead of four weeks in brief, hence, the learned counsel for the appellants could not file the proof of said payment within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.04.2023. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.04.2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said F.A. No.225 of 2017 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.225 of 2017 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has not raised any serious objection. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, F.A. No.225 of 2017 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.225 of 2017 before the concerned Bench after a week. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated: 19.09.2025 Saroj/