[2025:JHHC:37414] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.584 of 2023 ------ 1. Ramsubhag Singh, aged about 81 Years, Son of Late Chulhan Singh. 2. Hira Singh, aged about 69 Years, Son of Late Kuwar Chulhan Singh 3. Arun Singh, aged about 45 Years, Son of Late Badan Singh. 4. Umesh Singh, aged about 47 Years, Son of Late Badan Singh. 5. Shanti Kuwar, aged about 77 Years, wife of Madan Singh. All resident of Village – Lemari- Kallan, P.O. & P.S.- Majhiaon, District- Gadhwa (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. Gobind Pandey. 2. Gopal Pandey. Both sons of Kamleshwar Pandey, resident of Village – Patariya, P.O. & P.S. – Majhiaon, District- Gadhwa (Jharkhand). … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Ayush Aditya, Advocate Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Dayal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Amit Kr. Tiwary, Advocate ------ Order No:-07 Dated:-12-12-2025 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer for restoration of S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.08.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.08.2022. It is next submitted that the appellants of S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) prayed for time and the time was allowed to the appellants subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- by the appellants to the respondents of S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) through their counsel appearing in the record within twelve weeks from the date of that order but since the contact number of the appellants given to the learned counsel was unreachable, hence, the appellants of S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) could not be contacted and the said payment was not made within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) for non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.08.2022. Now the petitioners have deposited the said payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the opposite parties through their counsel appearing in the record the copy of which has been annexed at brief. It is further submitted that non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.08.2022 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) 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. 86 of 2000 (R) 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 petitioner, S.A. No. 86 of 2000 (R) 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. 86 of 2000 (R) before the appropriate Bench after a week. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 12.12.2025 Saroj/