[2026:JHHC:1111] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No.719 of 2025 ------ 1. Motilal Bedia (56 years) Son of Late Sodhna Bedia (now deceased) 2. Arjun Bedia (aged about 45 years) grand Son of Late Jagu Bedia Resident of – Village – Kadru, P.S. – Patratu, P.O. Barkakana, Dist. Ramgarh … Petitioners Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh (now – Ramgarh) P.O. & P.S. Ramgarh, Dist Ramgarh 2. The Deputy Chief Engineers (Const.) East Central Railway, P.O.- Barkakhana, P.S. Patratu, Dist Ramgarh … Opposite Parties ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mitul Kumar, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, GA V Ms. Moushmi Chatterjee, AC to GA V Mr. Shiv Kr. Sharma, Advocate : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI ------ Order No:-03 Dated:-16-01-2026 Heard the parties. This civil miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer for restoration of C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 its original file which stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 29.11.2024 passed by this Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the peremptory order dated 29.11.2024 passed by this Court to remove the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter. It is next submitted that said order of this Court could not be complied with due to inadvertence and as the Oath Commissioner failed to put red mark upon a correction over the petition which had been returned back to counsel by the Registry and due to this bonafide mistake of the petitioner, the said C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 stood dismissed for non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 29.11.2024 passed by this Court. It is next submitted that non-compliance of the said peremptory order dated 29.11.2024 was neither deliberate nor intentional. It is also submitted that the petitioner has very good grounds to agitate in the said C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 and unless the same is restored to its original file, the petitioner will be highly prejudiced. Hence, it is submitted that the C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 be restored to its original file. Learned counsel appearing for the State has not raised any serious objection. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner for restoration of the said C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 and submits that the opposite party No.2 will unnecessarily be harassed if the same is restored to its original file, hence, the opposite party No.2 be compensated adequately. Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 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.2,000/- by the petitioner to the opposite party No.2 through his counsel appearing in the record within two weeks from the date of this order. Registry is directed to list C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 before the concerned Bench after two weeks only if the petitioner files the proof of payment of the cost of Rs.2,000/- to the opposite party No.2 though his 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 C.M.P. No.977 of 2024 shall remain dismissed. This civil miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated- 16.01.2026-Animesh/