( 2026:JHHC:16989 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 905 of 2024 ------ 1. Rajmani Shukla, aged about 63 years, 2. Bidya Bhushan Shukla, aged about 62 years, 3. Bijay Shankar Shukla, aged about 56 years 4. Shatrughna Kumar Shukla, aged about 49 years All sons of late Ram Kripal Shukla 5. Meera Devi, aged about 47 years, wife of late Santosh Kumar Shukla All residents of Ranchi Road, Near HPCL Depot, P.O.- Marar, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh 3. The Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.- Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh 4. The Circle Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. & P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.- Ramgarh 5. Ramu Sao 6. Awadhesh Sao 7. Ravindra Sao 8. Sushil Sao All sons of late Gopi Sao, resident of Village-Marar, P.O.- Marar, P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh 9. Manju Devi, wife of Rohan Sao @ Khedu Sao, resident of Indira Nagar, Ranchi Road, behind Vrindavan Hospital, P.O.-Marar, P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh (Jharkhand)- 829117 10. Prabha Devi @ Saroj Devi, wife of Rajesh Kumar, resident of Village-Tirla, P.O.-Sarubera Tirla, P.S.-Mahuatand, Dist.- Ramgarh (Jharkhand)-819134 .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kr. Pandey, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, SC VI : Mr. Aman Kumar, AC to SC VI ------ Order No.03 Dated- 12.06.2026 Heard the parties. 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 W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 to its original file. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 was dismissed for non-compliance of peremptory order of filing supplementary affidavit. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as the petitioners and the legal heirs of the opposite party no.5 are not neighbours hence, the petitioners were not aware about the legal heirs of the opposite party no.5 and by the time they got the knowledge about the same, the peremptory time has already elapsed and the same resulted in dismissal of W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 and unless W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for restoration. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List W.P. (C) No. 4700 of 2016 under the appropriate heading before the appropriate Bench after a week. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 12.06.2026 Gunjan-