Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25807 (JHR)

NIRANJAN SINGH v. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PALAMAU

C.M.P./643/2026 · 2026-09-11

Anil Kumar Choudhary

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

( 2026:JHHC:27495 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 643 of 2026 ------ 1. Niranjan Singh, S/o Tila Mahto & Late Belashi Devi, aged about 47 years, resident of Village –Sonpurwa, P.O. – Nawajaipur, P.S. Paton (Patan), District –Palamau, Jharkhand. 2. Pradeep Kumar, S/o Tila Mahto & Late Belashi Devi, aged about 49 years, resident of Village –Sonpurwa, P.O. – Nawajaipur, P.S. Paton (Patan), District –Palamau, Jharkhand. 3. Rajiv Ranjan, S/o Tila Mahto & Late Belashi Devi, aged about 34 years, resident of Village –Sonpurwa, P.O. – Nawajaipur, P.S. Paton (Patan), District –Palamau, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus State of Jharkhand though the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, P.O.+P.S. & District –Palamau. .... .... .... Opp. Parties ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, G.P.-III ------ Order No.02 Dated- 11.09.2026 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioners for restoration of C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 to its original file. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 was dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order of this Court dated 17.04.2026 whereby petitioners were directed to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter in F.A. No. 299 of 2023 within two weeks. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unfortunately the learned counsel for the petitioners could not verify the remaining defects as after payment of Court Fee amounting to Rs.1,95,310/- some more amount is due with respect to the court fee which the petitioners could not deposit within the time frame, resulting in dismissal of the said C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025. It is next submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 and unless C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 is restored to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 be restored to its original file. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 is restored to its original file to the stage at which, it was before its dismissal. List C.M.P. No. 726 of 2025 under the appropriate heading after a week before the appropriate Bench. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 11.09.2026 Sonu-