Full Text
Translation output
§ f $-29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.L.P.304/2016
DELFAB GLOBAL PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Ms.Neelam,Adv.
CRL.L.P.304/2016
DELFAB GLOBAL PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Ms.Neelam,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI)& ANR Respondents
Through: Dr.M.P.Singh,APP.
Mr.Anshul Garg,Adv for R-2.
Through: Dr.M.P.Singh,APP.
Mr.Anshul Garg,Adv for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.PATHAK
06.01.2017
06.01.2017
CRL.L.P.304/2016
Heard. Leave to appeal granted. Registry to register this petition as an appeal.
Crl.A. No. /2017(to be numbered)
Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act before the trial court. Respondent no.2 (accused) was summoned and he also appeared before the trial court and participated in the proceedings.
During the pendency oftrial, on 4^^ April,2016,neither the appellant nor respondent no.2 (accused) appeared in Court. They remained unrepresented by their respective counsel,as well. Consequently,complaint
2017:DHC:8589 Li case was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-appearance of appellant
(complainant).
Appellant filed the review application, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 4 May,2016,which reads as under:-
" This is an application wherein it has been submitted that on 23.02.2016, the NDOH was fixed for 04.05.2016 and same was noted by them, however in the order sheetthe NDOH got recorded as 04.03.2016. On 04.03.2016 none appeared and matter was fixed as per order-sheetfor 04.04.2016.
On 04.04.2016 it was taken up and was dismissed for non-appearance.
It is submitted that since complainant side recorded the NDOH as 04.05.2016, therefore complainant did not appear for 04.03.2016 and
04.04.2016 and even accused side did not appear on said two dates. It is also submitted that one noting of04.05.2016 as NDOH is available on the cover ofcase file.
Submission made in the application considered. Though it appears that grievance of the complainant is genuine but the hands of this court are tied and since matter already stands dismissed b this court, therefore, this court cannot review its order. Hence application stands disposed off.
Dasti copy oforder be given as prayed for." The plea ofappellant that next date ofhearing was wrongly noted as
4'^ May,2016,instead of4'^ March,2016 is a probable and plausible plea.
There is every possibility of a litigant or his lawyer noting down a wrong date due to inadvertent error. Appellant was nothing to gain fi-om his non- appearance. It is noted that a perusal of order dated 4^^ May, 2016, as quoted above,also supports the plea ofthe appellant that date was wrongly noted as 4'*^ May,2016 instead of4'*^ March,2016. It appears that for this reason even respondentno.2 had also remained unrepresented.
Forthe foregoing reasons,the impugned order dated 4'*^ April,2016 is set aside and the complaint is restored, subject to however, costs of
^10,000/-to be paid by the appellantto respondent no.2.
Parties shall appear beforethe trial courton 13'^February,2017.
Appeal is disposed ofin the above terms.
A.KrPATHAK,J.
JANUARY 06,2017/dk
Heard. Leave to appeal granted. Registry to register this petition as an appeal.
Crl.A. No. /2017(to be numbered)
Appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act before the trial court. Respondent no.2 (accused) was summoned and he also appeared before the trial court and participated in the proceedings.
During the pendency oftrial, on 4^^ April,2016,neither the appellant nor respondent no.2 (accused) appeared in Court. They remained unrepresented by their respective counsel,as well. Consequently,complaint
2017:DHC:8589 Li case was dismissed for non-prosecution and non-appearance of appellant
(complainant).
Appellant filed the review application, which has been dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 4 May,2016,which reads as under:-
" This is an application wherein it has been submitted that on 23.02.2016, the NDOH was fixed for 04.05.2016 and same was noted by them, however in the order sheetthe NDOH got recorded as 04.03.2016. On 04.03.2016 none appeared and matter was fixed as per order-sheetfor 04.04.2016.
On 04.04.2016 it was taken up and was dismissed for non-appearance.
It is submitted that since complainant side recorded the NDOH as 04.05.2016, therefore complainant did not appear for 04.03.2016 and
04.04.2016 and even accused side did not appear on said two dates. It is also submitted that one noting of04.05.2016 as NDOH is available on the cover ofcase file.
Submission made in the application considered. Though it appears that grievance of the complainant is genuine but the hands of this court are tied and since matter already stands dismissed b this court, therefore, this court cannot review its order. Hence application stands disposed off.
Dasti copy oforder be given as prayed for." The plea ofappellant that next date ofhearing was wrongly noted as
4'^ May,2016,instead of4'^ March,2016 is a probable and plausible plea.
There is every possibility of a litigant or his lawyer noting down a wrong date due to inadvertent error. Appellant was nothing to gain fi-om his non- appearance. It is noted that a perusal of order dated 4^^ May, 2016, as quoted above,also supports the plea ofthe appellant that date was wrongly noted as 4'*^ May,2016 instead of4'*^ March,2016. It appears that for this reason even respondentno.2 had also remained unrepresented.
Forthe foregoing reasons,the impugned order dated 4'*^ April,2016 is set aside and the complaint is restored, subject to however, costs of
^10,000/-to be paid by the appellantto respondent no.2.
Parties shall appear beforethe trial courton 13'^February,2017.
Appeal is disposed ofin the above terms.
A.KrPATHAK,J.
JANUARY 06,2017/dk
JUDGMENT