[2026:JHHC:1182] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.518 of 2023 ------ Future Generali India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Neotia Towers, H. B. Road, P.O., P.S. Lalpur, Dist. Ranchi, through its Senior Executive – Ria Jaiswal d/o Raj Kumar Jaiswal, aged about 26 Years, r/o C/o Future Generali Insurance Co. Ltd., 3rd Floor, Chitrakoot Building 230A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata, P.O. Elgin Road, P.S. Bhawanipore, Dist. Kolkata, present address at 15, Park Street, Appejay House, 8th Floor, Bloc C, P.O. & P.S. Park Street, Dist. Kolkata. … Petitioner Versus 1. Sachidanand Prasad S/o Late Raghunandan Prasad 2. Samarkant Satyarthy S/o Sri Sachidanand Prasad Both resident of Road No. 6 B, Patel Nagar Hatia, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, P.O.- Hatia, District- Ranchi. 3. Haldhar Mahto s/o Nityanand Mahto, r/o at Hatia Rly Colony Q. No. D51, 43J, PO Hatia, PS Jagarnathpur, Ranchi 4. Vinod Kumar Singh, S/o Nandji Singh, r/o Birsa Chowk, PS Jagarnathpur, PO Hinoo, District Ranchi. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For the OP No.1 & 2 : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, Advocate Ms. Chetna Nandini, Advocate ------ Order No:-07 Dated:-16-01-2026 Heard the parties. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of M.A. No. 40 of 2020 to its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M.A. No. 40 of 2020 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2023. It is next submitted that in M.A. No. 40 of 2020, delay of 260 days in filing the said appeal was condoned by this Court subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the appellant to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 through their counsel appearing in the record within six weeks from the date of that order but though the appellant of M.A. No. 40 of 2020 was immediately communicated about the same and the conducting Advocate’s clerk of the appellant contacted the claimant’s Advocate’s clerk frequently requesting him to receive the said amount of Rs.5,000/-, but, the claimant’s Advocate’s clerk stated that he would do so after taking instructions from the claimant but could not receive the same within the stipulated time; which resulted in dismissal of the said M.A. No. 40 of 2020 for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2023. It is further submitted that non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 20.02.2023 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said M.A. No. 40 of 2020 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the M.A. No. 40 of 2020 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and 2 on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said M.A. No. 40 of 2020 and submits that the opposite party No.1 and 2 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.1 and 2 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission, M.A. No. 40 of 2020 is directed to be restored to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party No.1 and 2 through their learned counsel appearing in the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party No.1 and 2 through their counsel appearing in the record through Unified Payment Interface (UPI). Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and 2 acknowledges the receipt of said payment of Rs.10,000/-. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to list M.A. No. 40 of 2020 before the concerned Bench after one week. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 16.01.2026 Saroj/