( 2025:JHHC:16544 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 287 of 2023 ----- 1. Sarju Mahto, Age 70 years, 2. Lalu Mahto, Age 68 years, 3. Prakash Mahto, Age 55 years, All sons of Late Girdhari Mahto, All resident of Village –Parachidih, Post Office – Kurhobindo, Police Station –Jamua, District –Giridih. 4. Jiriya Devi, Age 53 years, W/o Rohan Mahto Village –Pindatand, P.O. –Pachamba, P.S. Giridih (M), District –Giridih. 5. Dropadi Devi, Age 41 years, W/o Amit Mahto, Village – Barmasia, P.O. Kurhobindo, P.S. Jamua, District –Giridih. 6. Yasoda Devi, Age 41 years, W/o Kartik Mahto, village – Baratand, P.O. Gadi Nandiha, P.S. Jamua, District –Giridih. 7. Loknath Mahto, Age 70 years, S/o Late Daulat Mahto, Village –Parachidih, P.O. –Kurhobindo, P.S. –Jamua, District –Giridih. … Petitioners Versus Bhekhlal Mahto, Son of Khudu Mahto, Resident of Village – Parchidih, Post Office –Kurhobindo, Police Station –Jamua, District –Giridih. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate ------ Order No.09 Dated- 20.06.2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of S.A. No. 371 of 2019 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, drawing attention of this Court to the supplementary affidavit dated 14.05.2025, that that S.A. No. 371 of 2019 was dismissed for default. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to inadvertence, the counsel for the petitioners could mark the case in the cause list and it was not in the mind of the counsel for the petitioners that the said S.A. No. 371 of 2019 was listed on the concerned date i.e. on 15.02.2023, therefore, when the case was called out no one could appear on behalf of the petitioners and the same resulted in dismissal of the said S.A. No. 371 of 2019. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No. 371 of 2019 and unless S.A. No. 371 of 2019 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No. 371 of 2019 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No. 371 of 2019 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List S.A. No. 371 of 2019 under the appropriate heading after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu-Gunjan/