JUDGMENT: Bala Krishna Narayana, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. and perused the material on record. Notice on behalf of the respondent no. 1 has been accepted by learned A.G.A, who prays for and is allowed four weeks time to file counter affidavit. 2. Issue notice to respondent no. 2, who may also file counter affidavit within same period, rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. List after six weeks. 3. Submission is that since the informant has failed to mention the date on which the notice allegedly sent by him to the revisionist demanding the payment of amount payable under the Cheque which had been dishonoured? in the complaint. The complaint petition under Section 138 N.I. Act could not be entertained by the Magistrate and the Court below has committed a patent error of law in refusing to discharge the revisionist. 4. In view of the above, it is directed that till the next date of listing, further proceeding of Complaint Case No. 3178 of 2008 (H.D.F.C. Bank Versus Mahesh Chandra Gautam), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar shall remain stayed.