BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. RAKIBA BIBI
C.M.P./1377/2023 · 2025-10-17
Anil Kumar Choudhary
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34930 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 34930 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
( 2025:JHHC:32232 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 1377 of 2023
------ Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rayganj, Dist.-Dinajpur (West Bengal) through Divisional Office-1, Lalji Hirji Road, Ranchi, P.S.-Kotwali, P.O.-Ranchi Head Post, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand … Petitioner
Versus
1. Rakiba Bibi, d/o Khaja Mohammad
2. Md. Hussain, s/o Khaja Mohammad @ Khoyaz Mohammad Sk
3. Md. Hasan, s/o Khaja Mohammad @ Khoyaz Mohammad Sk (1-3) all are r/o Mohalla Naya Tola, Baganpara, P.O.- Pakur, P.S.-Pakur (T), Dist.-Pakur, Jharkhand
4. Ajoy Kumar Pal, s/o Biswanath Pal, r/o P.W.D. Para, P.O.- Gangarampur, P.S.-Gangapara, Dist.-West Dinajpur (West Bengal), at present residing at C/o Trosamta Paul, Mas Kalmakhari, P.O. & P.S. & Dist.-Jalpaiguri
… Opposite Parties
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Dubey, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Asadul Haque, Advocate ------
Order No.08 Dated- 17.10.2025
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 M.A. No. 31 of 2013 to its original file.
It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that M.A. No. 31 of 2013 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory
order of showing the proof of payment of costs of Rs.1,000/- to the respondent no.1. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that due to inadvertence and bona fide mistake, the counsel for the petitioner could not comply the said peremptory order and the same has been complied with. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said M.A. No. 31 of 2013 and unless M.A. No. 31 of 2013 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly
prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the M.A. No. 31 of 2013 be restored to its original file.
Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.A. No. 31 of 2013 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal.
List M.A. No. 31 of 2013 under the appropriate heading after a week.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
17.10.2025 Sonu/Gunjan-