ORDER : 1. These revision cases have been filed against the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam in C.C.Nos.7318 & 7319 of 2015 respectively dated 28.07.2016. 2. The short facts leading to filing of these cases are that the petitioner as well as the respondent in both the cases are one and the same. The petitioner has filed a complaint for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, to punish the respondents and the said complaint was taken on file, which was numbered as C.C.Nos.201 and 204 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tiruppur. 3. Subsequently, pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court on the point of territorial jurisdiction to try the cases punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the said two cases were transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam and in the transferee Court, those cases have been re-numbered as C.C.Nos.7319 & 7318 of 2015 respectively. Though such transfer had been effected and the above said cases have been given in the transferee Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, no notice has been served on the petitioner in both cases which were pending and because of that, the petitioner had not been in a position to know whether the cases have been transferred to Palladam and the above said cases have been re-numbered. 4. While that being so, on 28.07.2016, those two cases had been taken up for hearing. As no one was present on behalf of the complainant/petitioner, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam has passed the present impugned orders stating that even on the previous hearings also, no one appeared on behalf of the complainant/petitioner and therefore, both cases were dismissed for default. Aggrieved against the said Judgments, the present revision cases have been filed. 5. I have heard Mr. G. Karthikeyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, after the cases are transferred to Palladam, no notice seems to have been issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam and definitely no notice has been served on the petitioner in both the cases. If notice has been served on the petitioner, definitely the petitioner would have either appeared in person or engaged a counsel. Without any notice, appearance of the petitioner is impossible. Once notice is accepted, the petitioner would appear before the court for number of hearings. If notice has been served on the petitioner, definitely the petitioner would have either appeared in person or engaged a counsel. Without any notice, appearance of the petitioner is impossible. Once notice is accepted, the petitioner would appear before the court for number of hearings. Therefore, the absence on the part of the petitioner on the said date on which the impugned orders were passed, was not at all known to the petitioner as he has not received any notice on the said hearing date and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the said two cases after having been transferred to Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, were posted for hearing on 23.12.2015 and thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam directed to issue notice to both the parties, returnable by 10.03.2016. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would also submit that on 10.03.2016 what has happened, is not known to the respondent. When the cases were posted on 28.07.2016, none was present for the petitioner. Therefore, both cases were rightly dismissed for default and the same need not be interfered with. As the petitioner being the complainant has not chosen to appear before the court pursuant to the Court notice, the impugned orders have been passed. 8. It is not in dispute that the cases were originally filed and taken on file and numbered at Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruppur and thereafter, the said cases have been transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam. 9. Whether the cases have been transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam or not, was not known to the petitioner hence, neither the petitioner has not engaged a counsel nor he was in a position to appear before the Court. 10. In this regard, this court specifically directed the petitioner's counsel to verify as to whether any notice has been issued by the Court below, i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Palladam and such notice has been served on the petitioner. After having verified the said fact, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 14.08.2017 wherein he has stated as follows: "I submit that, since no notice or information was received either by myself or by my counsel, I requested my counsel to verify about the stage of my complaint during the third week of November 2016. After having verified the said fact, the petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 14.08.2017 wherein he has stated as follows: "I submit that, since no notice or information was received either by myself or by my counsel, I requested my counsel to verify about the stage of my complaint during the third week of November 2016. Accordingly, when my counsel verified the stage of my complaint, he was informed that the complaint has been transferred to the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam from Judicial Magistrate No. II, Tiruppur and he again started to verify the stage on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Palladam , after some difficulty and time taking process, I have filed the above Criminal Revision Petitions on the file of this Hon'ble Court aggrieved by the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, dated 28.07.2016 in C.C.Nos.7319 & 7318 of 2015 dismissing my complaints for default. When the above matter came up for hearing, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to direct me to verify whether notice was issued to me in the above matter and whether the same was also served on me and further directed me to file an affidavit in this regard. 6. I submit that, subsequent to the orders of this Hon'ble Court my counsel in the trial Court verified the Court records and on such verification, has informed me that no court notice was sent to me and also there are no records are to show notice was served on me." 11. In view of the above attempt made by the petitioner to verify the facts the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that not only the fact that those cases have been transferred to Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam but also hearing dates have not been informed to the petitioner . 12. This Court finds that even in the impugned orders, the learned Magistrate, Palladam has stated that the petitioner as well as the respondent was absent on that date. Therefore, these cases were dismissed for default, as the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the previous hearing date and also on .28.07.2016. Nowhere in the impugned order, it is stated that inspite of the notice served on the petitioner, the petitioner was absent and therefore, it was dismissed for default, 13. Therefore, these cases were dismissed for default, as the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court on the previous hearing date and also on .28.07.2016. Nowhere in the impugned order, it is stated that inspite of the notice served on the petitioner, the petitioner was absent and therefore, it was dismissed for default, 13. Normally once a case is transferred to the court, the Transferee Court ought to give notice to both sides and only after ensuring that the notice has been served on the parties especially on the complainant/petitioner's side, then only any adverse order like “dismissed for default” can be passed. 14. On hearing both sides, it is evident that there is no contra evidence to show that notice has been served on the petitioner and inspite of notice been served on the petitioner, he did not appear before the court below and therefore, the cases were dismissed for default. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence to show that the petitioner has been served notice by the transferee Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, the affidavit filed by the petitioner before this court has to be accepted and therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are unsustainable and therefore, these cases are worthy to be allowed. 15. Accordingly, these criminal revision cases are allowed. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam is directed to take up the cases on file and to proceed the trial in accordance with law. Since C.C.Nos.201 and 204 of 2004 originally filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before concerned Magistrate Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Tiruppur, are of the year 2014 which are now transferred to the present court, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, is directed to take up the cases and complete.