[2026:JHHC:17117] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.592 of 2024 ------ Joytshana Sinha, aged about 35 years, w/o Santosh Kumar, resident of B-24, Bandhu Nagar, Birsa Chowk, P.O. & P.S.- Doranda, District- Ranchi. … Petitioner Versus 1. Ram Niwas, S/o Phool Singh, R/o Flat No. 92, village- Dohar Khurd, P.O.- Dohar Kalan, P.S.- Narnaul, District- Mahendragarh (Chhatisgarh). 2. IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd, having its registered office at IFFCO Sadan CI, P.O. + P.S.- Saket, District- Saket, New Delhi, 110017, having its office at 4th Floor, office no. 401 and 402 Eastern Mall, Dangratoli Chowk, Lalpur, Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate For the O.P. No.1 : Ms. Shipra Sonam, Advocate For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate ------ Order No:-07 Dated:-12-06-2026 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 to its original file; which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.03.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.03.2023. It is next submitted that the appellant of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 were directed to file requisites for service of notice upon the respondents of that appeal by registered post with A/D as well as under ordinary process within four weeks from the date of that order but the father of the Advocate’s clerk was serious and ultimately died, hence, he was involved in performing last rituals of his father but when the Advocate’s clerk came back, then, it was found out that the said appeal stood dismissed for non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.03.2023 because the said requisites could not be filed within the stipulated time. It is further submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 27.03.2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 and submits that the opposite party No.1 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.1 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 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.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party No.1 through the learned counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 before the concerned Bench after four weeks only if the petitioner pays the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the opposite party No.1 through the learned counsel appearing in the record within four weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 162 of 2022 shall remain dismissed. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 12.06.2026 Saroj/