Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P,395/2018 M/S DEEPAK AUTOMOBILES
CRL.L.P,395/2018 M/S DEEPAK AUTOMOBILES
VERSUS
SANJEEVNANDA , "
CRL.L.P.396/2018
VERSUS
■ SANJEEV NANDA '
CRL.L.P.397/2018
VERSUS
SANJEEVNANDA ■
CRL.L.P.398/2018
VERSUS
SANJEEVNANDA
CRL.L.P.399/2018
VERSUS
SANJEEVNANDA ■ ' : .
CRL.L.P.400/2018 . .
VERSUS
SANJEEV NANDA
CRL.L.P.401/2018
M/S DEEPAK AUTOMOBILES.
Petitioner Respondent .. Petitioner .. Respondent
.. Petitioner .. Respondent 2019:DHC:7885
M/S DEEPAK AUTOMOBILES.
Petitioner Respondent .. Petitioner .. Respondent
.. Petitioner .. Respondent 2019:DHC:7885
VERSUS
SANJEEVNANDA . Respondent
CRL.L.P.402/2018
M/S DEEPAK AUTOMOBILES Petitioner
M/S DEEPAK AUTOMOBILES Petitioner
VERSUS
SANJEEVNANDA .....Respondent Present: Mr.Ramesh Rawat,Advocate for petitioner.
Mr.Surinder Jain,Advocate for respondent.
Mr.Surinder Jain,Advocate for respondent.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.CHAWLA
19.07.2019 The petitioner craves leave to appealfor setting aside the order dated
07.04.2018 passed by the Id. MM, whereby, the complaint filed by the petitionerunder Section 138N.I.Actwas dismissedin default.
In the petition,the defaultin appearance is soughtto be explained for an error in informing and taking note of the urgent date of hearing as
17.04.2018 instead of07.04.2018. Avermentsto thateffectare supported by an affidavit. Taking into account the subject matter, the leave to appeal is allowed. Petitions stand disposed offaccordingly.
, The accompanying petitions be registered as appeals.
Crl.A.Nos. /2019(to be numbered)
Asjointly prayed,heard.
The complaintfiled by the appellant came to be dismissed in default videtheimpugned order dated07.04.2018,whichis asfollows.
"07.04.2018 Present: Nonefor complainant.
Ity Accusedinperson.
Be awaitedfor complainant till 12.00 noon.
Sd/ CAdM/SHD/KKD.Delhi, 07.04.2018 It is 12.00 noon
Present: Nonefor complainant Accusedinperson.
Be awaitedfor complainant till2.00p.m.
Sd/ CMM/SHD/KKD,Delhi. 07.04.2018 Itis 02.10p.m.
Present: Nonefor complainant.
Accusedin person.
Atrequest,NBWsissued againstthe accusedstands recalled.
None has appeared on behalfofcomplainant despite makingseveralrepeated callssince morning.
Even on last date ofhearing, none has appearedfor the complainant.
It seems that complainant is not interested infurther prosecution of the case. At this juncture, 1 am not inclined to grant any more opportunity to the complainant considering the heavypendency upon this court.
Accordingly,present complaint is dismissed in default for non appearance andfor non prosecution.
File be consigned to Record room after due compliance.
Sd/ CMM/SHD/KKD,Delhi. 07.04.2018." As per the impugned order, the appellant defaulted in appearance even on the last date. The previous default however, is not the reason for dismissal ofthe complaint on 07.04.2018. In other words,the appellant was required to explain the reasons for his default in appearance when the
/> impugned order came to be passed. The default for appearance on that day though as worded indicates for some laxity in giving information of the adjourned date as 17.04.2018 instead of07.04.2018, a eonstructive reading thereof, would show that it is a kind of default, which is attributable to the counsel for the appellant. Nothing comes to be pointed Out for the complainant by himself having contributed for the default resulting in the passing of the impugned order. Possibly, a complainant, who approached the Court with a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act, is by himself aggrieved.
The legal process invariably invites engaging an agent i.e. an
Advocate to prosecute a cause. Ifthe agent defaults,the complainantshould not get penalised. More so,nothing comes to be pointed outfor any default attributable to the appellant himself. Then, neither the appellant nor the
Advocate was to gain anything by any intentional defaultin appearance.For any hardship caused to the respondent,can be compensated in terms ofcost.
Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, the appeals are allowed subject to appellant paying cost of Rs.2,500/- each to the respondent in the respective cases. Subject to verification ofpayment of the costs,the complaints shall stand restored to their respective numbers and the stage, when these came to be dismissed vide the impugned orders dated
07.04.2018.
Parties-to appear before the Id.MM on 07.08.20.19. w
A.K.CHAWLA,J JULY 19,2019/nn
19.07.2019 The petitioner craves leave to appealfor setting aside the order dated
07.04.2018 passed by the Id. MM, whereby, the complaint filed by the petitionerunder Section 138N.I.Actwas dismissedin default.
In the petition,the defaultin appearance is soughtto be explained for an error in informing and taking note of the urgent date of hearing as
17.04.2018 instead of07.04.2018. Avermentsto thateffectare supported by an affidavit. Taking into account the subject matter, the leave to appeal is allowed. Petitions stand disposed offaccordingly.
, The accompanying petitions be registered as appeals.
Crl.A.Nos. /2019(to be numbered)
Asjointly prayed,heard.
The complaintfiled by the appellant came to be dismissed in default videtheimpugned order dated07.04.2018,whichis asfollows.
"07.04.2018 Present: Nonefor complainant.
Ity Accusedinperson.
Be awaitedfor complainant till 12.00 noon.
Sd/ CAdM/SHD/KKD.Delhi, 07.04.2018 It is 12.00 noon
Present: Nonefor complainant Accusedinperson.
Be awaitedfor complainant till2.00p.m.
Sd/ CMM/SHD/KKD,Delhi. 07.04.2018 Itis 02.10p.m.
Present: Nonefor complainant.
Accusedin person.
Atrequest,NBWsissued againstthe accusedstands recalled.
None has appeared on behalfofcomplainant despite makingseveralrepeated callssince morning.
Even on last date ofhearing, none has appearedfor the complainant.
It seems that complainant is not interested infurther prosecution of the case. At this juncture, 1 am not inclined to grant any more opportunity to the complainant considering the heavypendency upon this court.
Accordingly,present complaint is dismissed in default for non appearance andfor non prosecution.
File be consigned to Record room after due compliance.
Sd/ CMM/SHD/KKD,Delhi. 07.04.2018." As per the impugned order, the appellant defaulted in appearance even on the last date. The previous default however, is not the reason for dismissal ofthe complaint on 07.04.2018. In other words,the appellant was required to explain the reasons for his default in appearance when the
/> impugned order came to be passed. The default for appearance on that day though as worded indicates for some laxity in giving information of the adjourned date as 17.04.2018 instead of07.04.2018, a eonstructive reading thereof, would show that it is a kind of default, which is attributable to the counsel for the appellant. Nothing comes to be pointed Out for the complainant by himself having contributed for the default resulting in the passing of the impugned order. Possibly, a complainant, who approached the Court with a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act, is by himself aggrieved.
The legal process invariably invites engaging an agent i.e. an
Advocate to prosecute a cause. Ifthe agent defaults,the complainantshould not get penalised. More so,nothing comes to be pointed outfor any default attributable to the appellant himself. Then, neither the appellant nor the
Advocate was to gain anything by any intentional defaultin appearance.For any hardship caused to the respondent,can be compensated in terms ofcost.
Taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances, the appeals are allowed subject to appellant paying cost of Rs.2,500/- each to the respondent in the respective cases. Subject to verification ofpayment of the costs,the complaints shall stand restored to their respective numbers and the stage, when these came to be dismissed vide the impugned orders dated
07.04.2018.
Parties-to appear before the Id.MM on 07.08.20.19. w
A.K.CHAWLA,J JULY 19,2019/nn
JUDGMENT