( 2026:JHHC:12175 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.832 of 2025 ------ Awadhesh Mandal, aged about 48 years, son of Bhagwan Mandal, resident of village and P.O.-Babhanbay, P.S.-Muffasil (Sadar), District-Hazaribagh (owner of Trekker No.BR 13P-2786). … Petitioner Versus 1. Babita Devi, wife of Late Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Sao, aged about 29 years, 2. Pratap Gupta, son of Late Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Sao, aged about 5 years (Minor). 3. Harsita Kumari, daughter of Late Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Sao, aged about 7 years, (minor). 4. Prabhag Gupta, son of Late Arjun Prasad @ Arjun Sao, aged about 3 years, (Minor), Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 are minors represented through their mother and natural guardian i.e. Claimant No.1. All are resident of Village Mukundganj, P.O. and P.S.-Muffasil, District-Hazaribagh. … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate For the OPs : Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocate ------ Order No:-05 Dated:-24-04-2026 I.A. No.5772 of 2026 Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer for early hearing of the instant C.M.P. Since, the hearing of instant C.M.P. is taken up today, hence, this interlocutory application stands disposed of being infructuous so far as it relates to early hearing only. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) C.M.P. No.832 of 2025 This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of M.A. No.224 of 2014 to its original file which stood dismissed for default on 04.07.2022. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that M.A. No.224 of 2014 stood dismissed for default on 04.07.2022. It is next submitted that due to illness, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not appear before this Court when the said M.A. No.224 of 2014 was called out; which resulted in dismissal of the said M.A. No.224 of 2014 for default on 04.07.2022. It is next submitted that non-prosecution of the said order dated 04.07.2022 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said M.A. No.224 of 2014 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.224 of 2014 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said M.A. No.224 of 2014 and submits that the opposite parties will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party be compensated adequately, in terms of cost. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, M.A. No.224 of 2014 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 parties through their counsel appearing in the record, within two weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list M.A. No.224 of 2014 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioner files the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.5,000/- 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 M.A. No.224 of 2014 shall remain dismissed. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 24/04/2026 Abhiraj/