2026:JHHC:18036 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 917 of 2025 ----- 1. Smt. Bimla Devi, aged about 56 years, D/o Ram Lakhan Tiwari, W/o Sudheshwar Upadheya, R/o village Kumargarh Barkagaon, PO- Rajwadih, PS- Daltonganj, Dist- Palamau 2. Akhilesh Kumar Upadheya @ Akhilelsh Kumar Upadheya, aged about 54 years, 3. Mithilesh Kumar Upadheya, aged about 52 years. Sl no.2-3 both S/o Sudeshwar Upadheyay, both R/o village- Rabdi, PO- Chetma, PS- Patan, Dist- Palamau (Jharkhand) ....Petitioner(s). Versus 1. Gayatri Devi Alias Lalo Devi, D/o Ram Lakhan Tiwari, R/o village Kumargarh Barkagaon, PO- Rajwadih, PS- Daltonganj, Dist-Palamau 2. Madan Tiwari, S/o late Kailash Tiwari, R/o village Rajwadih Barkagaon, PO- and PS- Daltonganj, Dist- Palamau. 3. Tejwanti Kuer, W/o Ram Pawan Tiwari, 4. Anuj Kumar Pandey, S/o Ram Lakhan Pandey, 5. Anil Kumar Tiwari, S/o Sarju Pandey, sl no.3-5 R/o village Barkagaon. PO- Barkagaon, PS- Daltonganj, Dist- Palamau. … Opp. Party ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arbind Kumar Sinha, Advocate : Mr. Akhouri Prakhar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Shekhar, Advocate …...... 03/19.06.2026: I.A No. 13514 of 2025 1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 979 days in filing Civil Miscellaneous Petition to restore Second Appeal No. 240/2019. The Second Appeal was dismissed for default on non-compliance of peremptory order dated 16.06.2022, by which, the High Court directed the appellants to remove certain defects in the appeal within two weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the counsel discovered the dismissal of second appeal, he immediately informed the appellants and initiated steps to file a restoration petition. However, the counsel due to ill health was unable to attend court or complete the filing process for a considerable period. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the delay was neither intentional nor deliberate but was caused by the 2026:JHHC:18036 Page | 2 unavoidable circumstances, and that refusal to condone the delay would cause them irreparable loss and prejudice. 3. Learned counsel appears on behalf of opposite parties seriously opposes the restoration and submits that the real facts have not been stated by the petitioners. What has been stated, cannot be relied upon. He submits that the petitioners were absolutely not diligent in taking steps for restoration within time. It is their case that they had taken a plea of ill health of the arguing counsel, but from the record, it would be seen the same is only in September, 2024, whereas the case stood dismissed in July, 2022. There is no explanation from July, 2022 till September, 2024. Thus, this application needs to be dismissed. 4. After hearing the parties, and going through the records, I find that the Second Appeal Stood dismissed by virtue of peremptory order dated 16.06.2022, wherein two weeks’ time was granted to remove the defects and if the defects were not removed, the appeal would stand dismissed. Pursuant to the said order, the appeal stood dismissed on 30.06.2022. The office memorandum about the said dismissal was served upon the counsel on 21.11.2022, which was duly received on that date. Thus, it was within the knowledge of the petitioners that the appeal was dismissed, but the petitioners did not take any steps from November, 2022 till 4th April, 2025. This restoration application was only filed on 4th April, 2025. There is absolutely no explanation of the delay from 2022 till 2024, which is a very long period. Thus, in absence of any explanation, this interlocutory application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed. 5. Consequently, C.M.P. No.917 of 2025 is also dismissed. 6. Though there was ample scope of proceeding for giving wrong information on Oath by the petitioner but this Court is not taking a harsh step. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 19th June, 2026 S.K.D/CP-2 Uploaded on 29.06.2026