Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1454 (PNJ)

Avtar Agencies (Pvt. ) Ltd. v. Eicher Ltd.

2012-10-11

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) - The present revision has been filed against the order dated 12.8.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the revision filed by the respondent was allowed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioners being the dealer of the respondent, purchased the tractors from respondent and towards the payment of the aforesaid tractors, the petitioner company issued a cheque No.0628701, dated 20.12.2000, which allegedly bounced. Despite the legal notice, the petitioners failed to make the payment. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.2.2012, due to non-appearance of the parties. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision which was allowed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional court has committed a grave error while allowing the revision. The petitioners were wrongly proceeded against ex-parte by the learned revisional Court. The notices were not received by the petitioners. The company had already been closed in the year 2000. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that notices in the revision were issued to the petitioners on the same addresses, as mentioned in the complaint. Notices were also served to the petitioners on the addresses mentioned in the complaint and the counsel for the petitioners had appeared in the said case. 5. Heard and perused. 6. From the perusal of the case file, it emerges that the summons were issued on the same addresses as mentioned in the complaint and as per the report, the petitioners refused to receive the same, the affixation was made. In the complaint, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, the petitioners had already been served at the same addresses. There is no proof of shifting the company anywhere else. 7. In Standard Corporation India Ltd. vs. Kamblekar Ramesh, [2011(4) Law Herald (P&H) 3622] : 2011(4) RCR (Crl.)564 this Court has held as under:- “In the present case, the complaint was filed under Section 138 of the Act and the same was dismissed in default and the case has not been decided on merits. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that even accused has not appeared on that date and the complaint was dismissed for presence of none. From the perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that even accused has not appeared on that date and the complaint was dismissed for presence of none. It is settled law that case of the parties should not be thrown away on technicalities. A huge amount is involved. Under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. leave to appear can be granted by the High Court. Otherwise also, it is a fit case in which inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised as the impugned order does not sustained the test of legal scrutiny.” 8. In the present case, none of the parties appeared before the learned trial Court and the complaint was dismissed in default. The petitioners were served at the addresses given in the complaint. No prejudice is caused to the petitioners. In view of the above, this Court finds no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. As such, the present revision petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 9. CRM No. 51318 of 2011 and CRM No.16530 of 2012 stand disposed of.