Delfab Global Pvt Ltd v. State (NCT Of Delhi) & ANR

§ $-29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ 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.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.

JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

ORDER

% 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 f 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 of trial, 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 By:AMULYA

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 sheet the NDOH got recorded as 04.03.2016. On 04.03.2016 none appeared and matter was fixed as per order-sheet for 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 of 04.05.2016 as NDOH is available on the cover of case 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 of order be given as prayed for."

The plea of appellant that next date of hearing was wrongly noted as 4'^ May, 2016, instead of 4'^ 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 nonappearance. It is noted that a perusal of order dated 4^^ May, 2016, as quoted above, also supports the plea of the appellant that date was wrongly noted as 4'*^ May, 2016 instead of 4'*^ March, 2016. It appears that for this reason even respondent no.2 had also remained unrepresented. For the 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 appellant to respondent no.2. Parties shall appear before the trial court on 13'^ February, 2017. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

A.KrPATHAK, J.

JANUARY 06, 2017/dk