[2026:JHHC:10443] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.458 of 2025 ------ 1. Dinesh Gope aged about 70 years, 2. Umesh Gope aged bout 65 years, 3. Ramesh Gope aged about 55 years, All sons of Late Shyam Sundar Gope, resident of Laxmi Mohalla, P.O. and P.S. – Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand) 4. Sushila Devi aged bout 60 years, 5. Kaushilya Devi aged about 58 years, Both daughters of Late Shyam Sundar Gope, resident of Laxmi Mohalla, P.O. and P.S. – Giridih, District- Giridih (Jharkhand) … Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Asha Devi, 2. Smt. Usha Devi, Both daughters of Late Bhuneshwar Gope, resident of Village Laxmi Muhallah, P.O., P.S. and District- Giridih (Jharkhand) … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, Advocate Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate ------ Order No:-04 Dated:-10-04-2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this C.M.P. has been filed with the prayer to readmit the S.A. No.35 of 2002 to its original file which stood dismissed for default vide order dated 18.12.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that S.A. No.35 of 2002 was dismissed for default vide order dated 18.12.2024. It is next submitted that S.A. No.35 of 2002 was listed before this Bench on 18.12.2024 but when the said second appeal was called up, no one turned up on behalf of the appellants inadvertently due to unavoidable circumstances. It is next submitted that non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants in the said second appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is further submitted that the petitioners have very good grounds to agitate in the said S.A. No.35 of 2002 and unless the same is readmitted to its original file, the petitioners will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the S.A. No.35 of 2002 be readmitted to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submits that the petitioners are deliberately delaying the disposal of the second appeal. It is next submitted that the opposite parties will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is readmitted to its original file, hence, the opposite parties be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, S.A. No.35 of 2002 is directed to be readmitted to its original file at the same stage at which it was before its dismissal subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite parties through their counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order; failing which, this conditional order shall not be given effect to and this second appeal shall stand dismissed. The Registry is directed to list S.A. No.35 of 2002 after two weeks to its original file before the appropriate Bench if the learned counsel for the petitioners files the proof of the payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the petitioners to the opposite parties through their counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order. This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 10.04.2026 Saroj/