( 2025:JHHC:34874 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.311 of 2025 ------ 1. Jaswant Kumar Singh, aged about 49 years. 2. Jayant Kumar Singh, aged about 59 years. Both sons of Daya Sharkar Singh, represented through their constituted attorney Shiv Narayan Sao, son of Late Gajanand Sao, aged about 76 years, resident of Sentola, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. … Petitioners Versus Shankar Yadav, son of Late Bipat Yadav, Doing Hotel Business, Near Monika Saree, Sadar Bazar, resident of Gwala Patti, Ghasia Chowk, P.O. & P.S.-Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Nipun Bakshi, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Mrinal Singh, Advocate For the OP : Mr. Manjeet Kr. Choudhary, Advocate ------ Order No:-05 Dated:-21-11-2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for restoration of S.A. No.293 of 2018 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 08.02.2023. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that S.A. No.293 of 2018 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 08.02.2023. It is next submitted that due to inadvertent mistake on the part of the Advocate’s Clerk, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not deposit Rs.1,000/- by the petitioners with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said S.A. No.293 of 2018 for non-compliance of the order dated 08.02.2023. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said order dated 08.02.2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No.293 of 2018 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No.293 of 2018 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said S.A. No.293 of 2018 and submits that the opposite party will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party be compensated adequately, in terms of cost. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No.293 of 2018 is directed to be restored to its original file, at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal, subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party through his counsel appearing in the record, within a week from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list S.A. No.293 of 2018 before the concerned Bench after a week only if the petitioners file the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party through his counsel appearing in the record within a week from the date of this order failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and S.A. No.293 of 2018 shall remain dismissed. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 21/11/2025 Abhiraj/