( 2025:JHHC:26424 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 174 of 2025 ------ Rita Marandi .... .... …. Petitioner Versus Lalita @ Latika Baraik & Anr. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : Mr. Vipul Poddar, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 29.08.2025 I.A. No.649 of 2025 Heard the parties. This interlocutory application has been filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 77 days in filing this civil miscellaneous petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner the receipt of deposit of Rs.8,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) was misplaced somewhere, hence the same could not be filed within the stipulated time resulting in dismissal of the Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 but the petitioner was under the impression that the same has been filed and in fact the petitioner filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 57 of 2025 for early hearing of the said Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 and thereafter notice of the said Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 being dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court was served upon the petitioner on 07.01.2025 and immediately thereafter on 10.01.2025, this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed. It is next submitted that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate and the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in this civil miscellaneous petition and unless the delay in filing this civil miscellaneous petition is condoned, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the delay of 77 days in filing this instant civil miscellaneous petition is condoned. This interlocutory application stands disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P. No. 174 of 2025 Heard the parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order of depositing cost of Rs.8000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the receipt of deposit of Rs.8,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) was misplaced somewhere, hence the same could not be filed within the stipulated time resulting in dismissal of the Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 and unless Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List Second Appeal No. 70 of 2016 under the appropriate heading, before the appropriate Bench, after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-