( 2025:JHHC:21377 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 105 of 2020 C.M.D., CCL, Darbhanga House, Ranchi through its General Manager (L&R) T.N.B Rao, son of T. Subbaiah, resident of Jawahar Nagar Colony, Kanke Road, P.O. Kanke, P.S. Gonda, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand) …..Petitioner Versus 1. Biru Karmali 2. Jagarnath Karmali 3. Rajkumar Karmali All sons of late Bishwa Karmali, resident of village Murpa, P.O. Mandu, P.S. Mandu, District-Hazaribagh (Jharkhand) 4. Deputy Commissioner, P.O., P.s. and District-Hazaribagh .…… Opp. Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Kanishk Deo, Advocate For the O.P. No.-4:- Mr. Rahul Kamlesh A.C. to S.C.-IV For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3: Mr. Jaiprakash Pandey, Advocate 04/Dated: 01/08/2025 Pursuant to notice Mr. Jaiprakash Pandey, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent no.4. 2. This petition has been filed for restoration of First Appeal No. 21 of 2008 to its original file which stood rejected on 24.10.2019 for non compliance of order dated 26.09.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is delay of 80 days in filing the C.M.P for that I.A. No. 4723 of 2021 has been filed for condoning the delay. He submits that first appeal was dismissed for non compliance of peremptory order. He submits that defect was not removed within time as the advocate clerk was re-occupied in his house with certain exigency. He submits that it was out of mind of the office and when memo of rejection of the appeal has been served then steps have been taken in view of that delay of 80 days in filing the restoration petition ( 2025:JHHC:21377 ) 2 may kindly be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 opposes the prayer and submits that First Appeal is of the year, 2008 and the said appeal has been dismissed for non prosecution in the year 2019 and in view of that there is no merit in the C.M.P and I.A. 5. Considering that for non compliance of peremptory order first appeal was dismissed. The first appeal is continuation of the trial and the reasons have been disclosed in the I.A for condoning the delay and first appeal was not decided on merit. In view of above, the delay of 80 days in filing the C.M.P. is condoned. 6. I.A. No. 4723 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of. 7. Further, since the first appeal was not decided on merit and only for non compliance of the peremptory order, the said appeal has been dismissed, the prayer made in C.M.P. is allowed. Accordingly, First Appeal No. 21 of 2008 is restored in its original file. 8. This C.M.P. is allowed and disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, stands disposed of. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-