TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 4X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 29.10.2015, it was to be listed before the District Court, Delhi on 11.01.2016, however, it was not listed on that day. Thereafter, there was no information further to the appellant, as to when and where the matter was to be posted - in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case and the fact that the appellant was running from pillar to post as complaint was initially filed at Delhi, thereafter transferred to Gurugram and then to Delhi again. The Trial Court is directed to restore the Complaint - parties are directed to appear before the concerned Court on 02.12.2019 - Petition allowed. - CRL.A. 367/2018 - - - Dated:- 21-11-2019 - MR. SURESH KUMAR KAIT J. Appellant Through: Mr. Varun Tyagi, Adv. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by he had raised baseless and frivolous issues only to avoid his liability and the amount was not returned in favour of the appellant. Hence, a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the appellant against the respondent No.2 being CC No. 7743/1/2014 before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the month of April, 2014 wherein cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused/respondent No.2. However, during the time, when the said matter was pending adjudication, in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra Anr., (2014) 9 SCC 129 , the said complaint case was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts on the part of the appellant/complainant and the Court was pleased to adjourn the matter for 13.04.2015. On subsequent two dates i.e. 13.04.2015 and 16.05.15 nothing substantive could be done in the matter as the Presiding Officer was on leave and the matter was taken up by the Link Magistrate and the next date, in the matter, was fixed as 04.07.2015. However, it is pertinent to note here that the complainant was regularly being represented by himself and/or his counsel or both. 6. Meanwhile, the Negotiable Instruments Act was amended by the Parliament, which amendment negated the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra Anr. and the amendment la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid date, the appellant/complainant along with his counsel went to the concerned/competent Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and enquired about the matter but it was informed to them that the matter with the said details had not reached yet in the office and asked them to enquire after a week. 9. One week thereafter, the appellant/complainant and his counsel again enquired from the registry of Tis Hazari Courts, as well as from the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, West, Delhi about the status of the matter and as to whether the office had received the matter from the Court of Gurugram. However, again it was told to the complainant/his counsel that the matter had not been received on transfer from the Court of Gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atter is at the stage of defendants evidence. 12. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff/appellant had filed his evidence by way of, affidavit and in the affidavit also he had mentioned about the pendency of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent No.2/defendant. The aforesaid suit was last listed on 11.04.2017 for evidence of the plaintiff and on which date the plaintiff was cross examined by the counsel for the defendant/respondent No.2 in part. During the cross examination, the counsel for the respondent No.2/defendant gave the suggestion that the plaintiff had wrongly deposed that the complaint under section 138 against the defendant was pending, whereas the same had already been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 29.10.2015 and the date given in the said order was 11.01.2016. However, the matter was not listed on 11.01.2016. Thereafter, he got verified from the Court of Gurugram about the status of the same. 17. The matter was listed for the first time on 28.01.2016 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi and the information of the same was never given to the appellants or his counsel. Thereafter, matter was fixed for 02.02.2016 and 10.05.2016. On the aforementioned dates, the Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, no proceedings could take place. On 23.08.2016, since the appellant was not aware of the further date of hearing, therefore, neither appellant nor his counsel appeared on the said date. Consequentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
