[2025:JHHC:21374] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.489 of 2025 ------ 1. Mahabir Swarnkar aged about 69 years 2. Lakhan Swarnkar aged about 53 years 3. Sanjay Swarnkar aged about 40 years All sons of Late Hari Charan Swarnkar, residents of Village Atka Chatti, P.O. Atka Chhati, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. Prabha Devi wife of Late Basudeo Naiyak, resident of Village Atka Chatti, P.S. Atka Chatti, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih 2. Jalebi Naiyak 3. Doman Naiyak 4. Sita Ram Naiyak All sons of Bhuneshwar Naiyak 5. Naresh Naiyak 6. Ashok Naiyak Nos.5 and 6 are sons of Late Tulsi Nayak 7. Mosomat Kanti Devi wife of Late Tulsi Nayak 8. Lafra Nayak 9. Prakash Nayak Nos.8 and 9 are sons of Gajo Nayak @ Dhanu Nayak 10. Most. Nemia wife of Late Bhikhari Nayak 11. Bijay Kumar minor son of Late Bhikhari Nayak, being represented his mother, natural guardian and next friend, Most. Nemia, Respondent No.10 whose interest is not adverse to that of her minor son. 12. Ram Chandra Nayak son of Gomal Nayak All residents of Village Atka Chatti, P.O. Akta Chatti, P.S. Bagodar, District Giridih (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Kundan Kr. Ambastha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sushil Kr. Verma, Advocate Mr. Arvind Prakash Malakar, Advocate ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-01-08-2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer for restoration of Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court to file the proof of deposit of Rs.4,000/- by the petitioners of this case with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). It is next submitted that due to negligence and bonafide mistake, the proof of the said deposit could not be filed with the stipulated time which resulted in dismissal of the said Second Appeal No.33 of 2011. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said order dated 18.12.2024 within the stipulated time was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that the petitioners have already made the said deposit on 23.01.2025 and filed the proof the same. It is also submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioners for restoration of the said Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 and submits that the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 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.9,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 through their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 before the concerned Bench after six weeks only if the petitioners file the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.9,000/- to the opposite party Nos.1 to 9 though their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of this order failing which this conditional order shall not be given effect to and Second Appeal No.33 of 2011 shall remain dismissed. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Animesh/