IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 209 of 2023 ------ The State of Jharkhand, Rural Development Department (Rural Works Affairs), Deoghar Jharkhand through Mr. Krishna Kumar Choudhary aged about 58 years, s/o late Ram Sundar Choudhary Posted as Executive Engineer, Rural Development Special Division, Deoghar, P.O. & P.S.-Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar, Jharkhand-814112 … Petitioner Versus M/s Modi Projects Limited, Kanke Road, Ranchi, Sub- Division and P.O.+P.S.-Kanke, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand- 834006 … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar, GA III : Mr. Deepankar, AC to GA III For the Opp. Party : Mr. Amit Kr. Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.10 Dated- 07.03.2025 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner for restoration of Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 was listed before this Court on 23.03.2021 under the heading ‘for Orders’ but due to inadvertence, the case could not be marked by the lawyer in the cause list, therefore, the appellant could not appear before this Court, when the case was called out on 23.03.2021 and thus remained on aware about the order passed on that day. On 23.03.2021, this Court granted four weeks’ peremptory time to the appellants to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is also submitted that when the case was called, the appellant could not appear as the case could not be marked in the cause list hence, the appellant as well as the counsel for the appellant were not aware about the peremptory order of removing the defects and the peremptory time period for the same elapsed; but the defects could not be removed, resulting in dismissal of the said Arbitration Appeal, for non-compliance of the peremptory order. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is next submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 and unless Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the opposite party has challenged the order dated 07.02.2025 by which the delay in filing this civil miscellaneous petition was condoned by this Court, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Diary No. 12482 of 2025 but no stay has been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Perusal of the record reveals that on 07.02.2025, learned counsel for the opposite party prayed for three weeks’ time to advance argument on the merits of the civil miscellaneous petition. Time was allowed as the last chance. Though the case was listed more than three weeks after 07.02.2025 but today also the learned counsel for the opposite party prays for time. Keeping in view that arbitration appeal is of the year 2020 and the very purpose of enactment of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is to expedite the commercial disputes; which will be frustrated if unnecessary delay is caused in disposal of the cases related to arbitration matters, this Court is not inclined to grant any time further hence, the prayer for time is rejected. Perusal of the record reveals that in the counter affidavit, it has been contended that the petitioner has come to this Court with unclean hands and has suppressed material facts but nowhere the contention of the petitioner that the lawyer of the petitioner could not mark the case in the cause list and consequently the lawyer of the appellant as well as the appellant was not aware about the order passed by this Court on 23.03.2021 by which peremptory time was allowed by this Court for removal of the defects has not been challenged. In the case of Union of Territory of Ladakh & Ors. vs. Jammu & Kashmir National Conference & Anr. reported 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1140, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the position of law by observing that the High Court will proceed to decide the matters on the basis of the law as it stands and it is not open, unless specific direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India; to await the outcome of a connected matter unless of course, the proceeding is stayed by a specific order. Under such circumstances and in view of the undisputed fact that the lawyer of the appellant failed to mark the case in the cause list and was not aware about the order for which this Court passed peremptory order to remove the defects in the said Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 and also considering the object of the enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 be restored to its original file; because of the undisputed sufficient cause shown by the appellants, as already discussed above. Accordingly, the prayer is allowed. The Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. The appellant is directed to remove the defects within four weeks from today, failing which, Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 shall stand dismissed without further reference to the Bench. In case, the defect as pointed out by the stamp reporter are removed within four weeks, Registry is directed to list Arbitration Appeal No. 02 of 2020 under the appropriate heading before the appropriate bench within a week of removal of the defects. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Sonu-Gunjan/