JUDGMENT :- The complaint of the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate came to be dismissed on 4-3-2009. The order shows that, inspite of sufficient opportunity the complainant failed to lead the evidence. The matter was pending for evidence from 7-6-2007. The complainant had applied for adjournment. The reason for the adjournment is not reflected in the order. The copy of the application showing the reason is not produced by the applicant. The applicant's Advocate states that, on 4-3-2009 the Junior Advocate who had papers, met with an accident. He cannot show the particulars of the accident. 2. The earlier adjournment application, which is shown in the order as Exh.116, is also not produced. The applicant's Advocate states that, the applicant-complainant was hospitalized on the earlier date of hearing when the application Exh.116 was made. It is not known whether the application shows the reason of hospitalization of the applicant complainant. The particulars of the hospitalization is not shown to the Court when called. 3. The complaint was of the year 2002. Process was issued on 7-12-2002. Thereafter summons was served. The last Vakalatnama came to be filed on 7-6-2007. The matter was pending for evidence since then. 4. The entire Roznama of the Court is produced. The applicant's Advocate has filed a columnar statement showing what transpired in the Court during the seven years that the matter remained pending. The columnar statement shows that the applicant-complainant had made four applications. The matter came to be adjourned for the absence of the applicant complainant on 18 occasions. The accused had made 37 applications. I am told that all of these applications were for exemption from appearance. The accused which is a company and it's director was from Mumbai. The case was filed in Kolhapur. The complainant did not consent to permanent exemption. The complainant is a businessman. The complainant has not proceeded in an effective, efficient business-like manner. The Advocate for the respondent rightly argued that had the application for permanent exemption been consented, further applications on each date of hearing would not have been necessitated. The complainant was directed to file his say in several exemption applications resultantly requiring warrants to be issued for nonappearance of the accused. 5. The Advocate for the respondent rightly argued that had the application for permanent exemption been consented, further applications on each date of hearing would not have been necessitated. The complainant was directed to file his say in several exemption applications resultantly requiring warrants to be issued for nonappearance of the accused. 5. The fact remains that when the Magistrate was to take up the matter as old matter pending in Court for seven years since the issue of process and after the Vakalatnama is filed. The complainant, without cause, sought adjournment. That was after 2 adjournments on previous two dates of hearing were granted. 6. The complainant has not shown to this Court reasonable cause for such adjournment. Hence, the Magistrate's decision cannot be faulted. It is for the complainant to be diligent to prosecute the matter. 7. The Magistrate's order does not suffer any irregularity. Hence, the revision application is rejected. Application rejected.