Judgment :- The petitioner has come forward with this Criminal Revision Petition challenging the order dated 07.03.2012 in C.M.P. No. 1258 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Coimbatore by which the petition filed by the respondent to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was allowed. 2. The respondent herein has filed the unnumbered Calander case contending that the petitioner is one of the subscribers of chit group No. G2G/307/KDM/9 for a chit value of Rs.3,00,000/- with a duration of 20 months and monthly subscription of Rs.15,000/-. The petitioner was declared as a successful bidder of a chit and therefore the respondent paid the prize amount of Rs.2,43,000/-on 18.09.2007. After receipt of the prize amount, the petitioner committed default in payment of subscription amount, inspite of repeated demand. The petitioner was liable to pay Rs.1,21,122/-towards subscription amount with interest accrued thereon. After repeated demands, the petitioner issued a cheque dated 20.09.2010 for Rs.1,21,122/-drawn on ICICI Bank, Trichy Road Branch, Coimbatore and on its presentation, the cheque was dishonoured for the reason 'account closed'. The respondent sent a statutory notice on 07.10.2010 for which the petitioner sent a reply on 18.10.2010 with false averments. Under those circumstances, the respondent has filed the complaint before the trial Court. There was a delay of 53 days in filing the complaint and therefore, the respondent filed CMP No. 1258 of 2011 to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the complaint. By the impugned order, the court below allowed the application against which the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contendd that the impugned order passed by the Court below is liable to be set aside inasmuch as the court below has not assigned any reason at all for allowing the petition for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the complaint. In other words, the impugned order passed by the court below is a cryptic order by which the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as he could not file an effective appeal or revision assailing such a cryptic order of the court below. In other words, the impugned order passed by the court below is a cryptic order by which the petitioner was prejudiced inasmuch as he could not file an effective appeal or revision assailing such a cryptic order of the court below. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others) (2010) 3 SCC 732 to contend that a judicial order must be supported by reasons and in the absence of any reason for allowing the application, it can be construed that the impugned order was passed without application of mind and consequently it is liable to be set aside. Only a reasoned order would ensure that application of mind in the decision making process because, persons, who were adversely affected by an order must know the reasons based on which his claim or plea was rejected. In this case, the respondent has filed the application for condoning the delay of 53 days by simply stating that the case bundles have been mxied along with old case bundles and it could be traced for some time. It was further stated in the application for condonation of delay that the counsel for the respondent was entrusted with a bunch of cases all put in a single file, but unfortunately, the entire file was misssed by the counsel and it could be traced only after some time and therefore the delay had occurred. Such a reasoning asigned by the respondent is not supported by any affidavit by the concerned advocate and therefore, the plea raised by the respondent ought not to have accepted by the court below. Further, the counsel for the respondent had similtaneously conducted a case before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 422 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein and therefore, the theorey put forward by the respondent for condonation of delay of 53 days ought not to have been acepted by the court below. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are number of litigations pending before various court at the instance of the respondent, which is a chit company. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there are number of litigations pending before various court at the instance of the respondent, which is a chit company. The cases filed at the behest of the respondent were looked after by an advocate to whom the entire case papers were entrusted, but unfortunately, he had kept the documents relating to the persent case with other cases and it could not be traced for some time. In this process, the delay had occurred. In any event, the delay was only 53 days in filing the complaint and the delay was also properly explained by the respondent. The court below was convinced with the reasons assigned for condonation of delay and by exercising its judicial discretion, the delay was condoned. Merely because the respondent defended the proceedings initiated before the Consumer Forum, it cannot be said that the delay caused in the present case cannot be condoned. The petition for condonation of delay has to be independently looked into, which was rightly done by the court below, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case. 5. I heard the counsel for both sides. By consent of counsel for both sides, the main Criminal Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the court below ougnt not to have allowed the petition for condonation of delay without assigning any reason. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the order passed by the Court below is a cryptic order without disclosing any reasons for allowing the petition for condonation of delay and therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 7 In this context, it is necessary to look into the order passed by the court below, which is extracted hereunder:- Tamil 8. A cursory perusal of the order passed by the court below would indicate that the court below has not assigned any reason for condoning the delay and that the order passed by the court below is a cryptic order, a practice deprecated by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court. A cursory perusal of the order passed by the court below would indicate that the court below has not assigned any reason for condoning the delay and that the order passed by the court below is a cryptic order, a practice deprecated by this Court as well as the Honourable Supreme Court. The Court below need not write eloborate judgment meeting out all the relevant or irrelevant pleadings raised by the both sides, but the Court below is expected to adduce some reason for its logical conclusion after analysing the pleadings and other evidences let in by both sides. In the present case, as stated supra, no reason at all was assigned by the Court below for condoning the delay of 53 days in filing the complaint. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others) (2010) 3 SCC 732 wherein in para Nos. 41, 42, and 43,it was held as follows:- "41. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an oredr and without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/ unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum (vide Raj Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar, SCC p.527, para 19; Vishnu Dev Sharma vs. State of UP; SAIL v. STO, State of Uttanchal vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi, U.P. SRTC vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta, Ram Phal vs. State of Haryana, Mohd Yusuf vs. Faij Mohammad and State of H.P. vs. Sada Ram) 42. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as to why his application has been rejected." 10. It is evident from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court that every judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in writing, because such reasons recorded in writing ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as to why his application has been rejected." 10. It is evident from the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court that every judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in writing, because such reasons recorded in writing ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. Further, if the order is assailed by way of appeal or revision before the higher forum, the person affected may not be in a position to challenge it effectively because he do not know as to why his plea was rejected. In this background, when the impugned order is looked into, the court below has not assigned any reasons for condonation of the delay and therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is sustainable and acceptable. 11. When we analyse the evidence available on record, the respondent has filed the application to condone the delay of 53 days in filing the application on the ground that the respondent is not only prosecuting the present case but filed or instituted many cases on behalf of the respondent. It is the further case of the respondent that they have entrusted the cases to an advocate consisting of the entire case bundle and the advocate has lost or misplaced the papers. The documents could not be traced for some time and therefore the delay had occurred. To prove this averment, the petitioner has not filed the affidavit of the concerned advocate nor examined the advocate except the ipsy dixit of the respondent. This is not the only case between the parties. Earlier, the revision petitioner has filed C.C. No. 422 of 2010 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore against the respondent herein and that was pending during the relevant time and ultimately, the Consumer case was allowed in favour of the complainant/revision petitioner herein and the same advocate was conducting the case before the Consumer Forum on behalf of the respondent herein and therefore, the respondent was aware about the present complaint and the delay in filing the complaint. The respondent, having lost before the Consumer Forum has filed the present complaint only to harass the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was not aware of the proceedings to be initiated before the court below in time, but wantonly caused the delay. The respondent, having lost before the Consumer Forum has filed the present complaint only to harass the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent was not aware of the proceedings to be initiated before the court below in time, but wantonly caused the delay. The court below also, without considering the aforesaid facts has allowed the application for condonation of delay. 12. The respondent, in the affidavit filed before the court below, has clearly stated that the respondent company, which is engaged in chit funds transaction, has been litigating in various courts and therefore it can be inferred that the respondent is very much aware of the proceedings pending before the court below. Further, the respondent, as a company, is having a batterry of lawyers to prosecute or defend, as the case may be, various litigations before several Courts or Forum. Therefore, it cannot be gain said that merely because certain papers were lost, which were entrusted to a particular advocate, the delay had occurred. It only indicates that the respondent was not vigilant enough in prosecuting the case. Therefore, the reasons assigned by the respondent for the delay is not justifiable or acceptable. Therefore, the impugned order of the Court below is liable to be set aside and consequently, the petition for condonation of delay has to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.