( 2026:JHHC:27493 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 140 of 2026 ------ 1. Sandhya Mani Mahato, aged about 44 years, D/o Late Meghnath Mahato, W/o Durga Charan Mahato, R/o Near Hari Mandir, P.O. Baramari Panchayat, P.S. Kharsawan, District –Seraikella-Kharsawan 2. Smt. Sumitra Mahato, aged about 58 years, W/o Meghnath Mahato 3. Krishna Prasad Mahato, aged about 34 years, 4. Bisu Prasad Mahato @ Bishnu, aged about 33 years 5. Panchanan Mahato, aged about 30 years, all 3 to 5, sons of Meghnath Mahato Petitioner nos. 2 to 5 Residents of village –Patamda, P.O.& P.S. –Patamda, District –East Singhbhum. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus 1. Ashok Mahato, S/o Late Lochan, 2. Mahato Paltan Mahato, S/o Late Lochan Mahato Both Resident of Village Patamda, P.O. & P.S. Patamda, District –East Singhbhum. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner s : Mr. P.S.A.S. Pati, Advocate : Ms. Vani Kumari, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, Advocate : Md. Imran Beig, Advocate ------ Order No.04 Dated- 11.09.2026 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of S.A. No. 229 of 2018 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that S.A. No. 229 of 2018 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 18.05.2023 whereby prayer for time was allowed to the appellants subject to deposit of Rs.1,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within four weeks. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that due to inadvertence the said amount of Rs.1000/- could not be deposited Rs.1,000/- with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA) within the stipulated time, resulting in dismissal of the said S.A. No. 229 of 2018. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No. 229 of 2018 and unless S.A. No. 229 of 2018 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that S.A. No. 229 of 2018 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, S.A. No. 229 of 2018 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List S.A. No. S.A. No. 229 of 2018 under the appropriate heading after a week before the appropriate Bench. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 11.09.2026 Sonu-