Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22808 (JHR)

M/S SEHRA STEEL INDUSTRIES v. ADITYAPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

C.M.P./914/2025 · 2026-08-14

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:JHHC:24456] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.914 of 2025 ------ M/s Sehra Steel Industries, a sole proprietorship firm at Adityapur, P.S.-Adityapur, P.O. Adityapur, District- Singhbhum West … Petitioner Versus Adityapur Development Authority through its Managing Directorat Adityapur P.O. + P.S.- Adityapur, District- Singhbhum West. … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Malityar, Advocate For the Opp. Party : None ------ Order No:-05 Dated:-14-08-2026 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 to its original file which stood dismissed on 07.01.2025 for non-compliance of the order dated 10.12.2024 passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 was dismissed for non-compliance vide order dated 07.01.2025. It is next submitted that Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 was listed before this Bench on 10.12.2024 and prayer for time of the appellant was allowed subject to the appellant depositing Rs.1000/- with the JHALSA within four weeks, but the petitioner has no knowledge about this fact and the conducting lawyer did not convey the said order to the petitioner; which resulted in dismissal for non-compliance vide order dated 07.01.2025. It is further submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order to deposit ₹ 1000/- by the petitioner was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 be restored to its original file. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party, in spite of repeated calls. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal. Registry is directed to list Second Appeal No. 9 of 1997 before the appropriate Bench after two weeks. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 14.08.2026 Amar/