SH. SANJEEV JAIN PROP.ASHOK COMPANY vs. M/S. DESIGN POINT & ANR.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: February 13, 2020 + CRL.L.P. 849/2018 SH. SANJEEV JAIN PROP.ASHOK COMPANY + CRL.L.P. 855/2018 SH. SANJEEV JAIN + CRL.L.P. 4/2019 SH. SANJEEV JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Nagender Yadav, Advocate Versus M/S. DESIGN POINT & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Alok Singh & Mr. Malay Chand, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI JUDGMENT BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) CRL.L.P. 849/2018 CRL.L.P. 855/2018 CRL.L.P. 4/2019 Vide above captioned three petitions, petitioner is seeking quashing th of order of 20 October, 2018 passed by the learned trial court, vide which his three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Crl.L.P.849/2018 1 Crl.L.P.855/2018 Crl.L.P.4/2019 Instruments Act, 1881 have been dismissed in default and for non prosecution. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that non- appearance of petitioner before the learned trial court was neither deliberate nor intentional and in these circumstances, the petitions be allowed in the interest of justice. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has opposed this petition submitting that the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and these petitions deserve dismissal. Heard. The submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been heard and in view of the fact that non-appearance of the petitioner was neither intentional nor deliberate, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of leave. In view of aforesaid, these petitions are allowed and are directed to be registered as an appeal accordingly. Crl.Appeal No.------ Crl.Appeal No.------ Crl.Appeal No.------ (Registry to assign numbers) The above captioned three appeals have been preferred against the th order dated 20 October, 2018 passed by the learned trial court vide which appellant’s complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 have been dismissed for non appearance and non prosecution while observing that appellant had not been appearing before Crl.L.P.849/2018 2 Crl.L.P.855/2018 Crl.L.P.4/2019 the learned trial court and seems to be not interested in further prosecution of these complaints. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding returned by the learned trial court that appellant is not interested in pursuing his cases and that appellant/complainant was not present on the earlier date rd also, is erroneous because on the earlier date i.e. on 23 May, 2018, appellant/ complainant’s counsel had appeared before the learned trial court and rather respondents/accused had failed to appear and non- th bailable warrants were issued for 29 October, 2018. It is further th submitted by learned counsel for appellant that on 29 October, 2018 when appellant/complainant’ counsel appeared before the trial court, he th found that the matter was listed for 29 August, 2018 and thereafter on th 20 October, 2018 and was dismissed in default for non appearance and non prosecution. It is further submitted by learned counsel for appellant that it is a case of wrong noting of date by appellant/complainant’s th counsel. Inadvertently the date was wrongly noted as 29 October, 2018 th instead of 29 August, 2018. It is, therefore prayed that in the interest of th justice, impugned order of 20 October, 2018 be set aside and appellant’s complaints be restored. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has opposed these appeals on the ground that the impugned order suffers from no illegality or infirmity. Crl.L.P.849/2018 3 Crl.L.P.855/2018 Crl.L.P.4/2019 After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, this Court finds th that non-appearance of appellant before the learned trial court on 29 th August, 2018 as also on 20 October, 2018 was neither deliberate nor intentional but because of wrong noting of date by the learned counsel and for the lapse of appellant’s counsel, appellant should not be made to suffer. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order th dated 20 October, 2018 passed by the learned trial court dismissing appellant’s complaints under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for non appearance and for non prosecution, is set aside and the complaints are restored to their original position. th Let the parties appear before the learned trial court on 18 March, 2020, for further proceedings in accordance with the law. With directions as aforesaid, the above captioned three appeals stand disposed of accordingly. (BRIJESH SETHI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 13, 2020 r Crl.L.P.849/2018 4 Crl.L.P.855/2018 Crl.L.P.4/2019