[2026:JHHC:21830-DB] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 89 of 2019 --------- Steel Authority of India Limited, a Central Government company registered under S. 617 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi, through one of its unit at Bokaro in Jharkhand known as Bokaro Steel Plant, having its plant and township at Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S. Bokaro Steel City, Dist.- Bokaro through Ramesh Chandra aged about 45 years son of Prakash Chandra resident of Bokaro Steel City, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, District- Bokaro. .…… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through its Commissioner of Commercial Taxes cum Secretary, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi. 2. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeal) Dhanbad Division, P.O. & P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bokaro Circle, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro, Dist.-Bokaro. … … Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Mr. Amish Lal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Sanket Khanna, AC to Sr. AAG ----------- 05/Dated: 23rd July, 2026 I.A. No. 960 of 2024: 1. The instant interlocutory application has been filed for condonation of delay of 345 days which has occurred in filing the present civil misc. petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the reason for the said delay is that on an earlier occasion, petitioner filed an C.M.P. No. 176 of 2018 (Steel Authority of India Limited Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) before this Court for restoration of Civil Review No.45 of 2017. However, inadvertently, order sought to be recalled could not be annexed in the aforesaid Civil Miscellaneous Petition and accordingly, vide order dated 17th December, 2018, the C.M.P. No.176 of 2018 was dismissed with a liberty to file a fresh restoration petition. [2026:JHHC:21830-DB] 3. It has further been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thereafter, the present restoration petition being C.M.P. No.89 of 2019 has been filed before this Court. 4. It has been submitted that the delay occurred in filing is neither intentional nor deliberate but it is due the fact that the petitioner was unaware of the preemptory order passed by this Court. It has also been submitted that immediately after dismissal of C.M.P. No. 176 of 2018, petitioner applied for certified copy of the order dated 17.12.2018 passed in C.M.P. No. 176 of 2018. The certified copy of the same was made available to petitioner on 24.01.2019 and thereafter, on 02.02.2019, the present application was made ready for its filing and accordingly, the same has been filed on 03.02.2019. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the delay of 345 days in filing the instant petition may be condoned so that the present civil misc. petition be restored to its original file and the matter be heard and decided on merits. 6. There is no opposition on behalf of the opp. parties to the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Considering the reason assigned in the instant interlocutory application, particularly at paragraphs-5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 thereof, the delay of 345 days in filing the instant civil misc. petition, is hereby, condoned. 9. Accordingly, the present interlocutory application stands allowed, as such, disposed of. C.M.P. No. 89 of 2019: 10. The instant civil misc. petition has been filed for restoration of Civil Review No.45 of 2017 which stood dismissed for default due to non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.01.2018. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Civil Review No.45 of 2017 which stood dismissed for default due to non- compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.01.2018, may be restored to its original file otherwise the petitioner may suffer irreparable loss and injury. [2026:JHHC:21830-DB] 12. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has raised no objection rather he has fairly submitted that the civil review may be restored to its original file so that the matter may be heard and decided on merit. 13. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions advanced on their behalf, deems it fit and proper to restore the Civil Review No.45 of 2017 which stood dismissed for default due to non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 16.01.2018, to its original file. 14. In view thereof, the Civil Review No.45 of 2017 is restored to its original file. 15. In the result, the instant civil misc. petition stands disposed of. 16. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 23rd July, 2026 Saurabh/-