Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

M/S International Panaacea Ltd vs P K Singh on 4 June, 2010

                                          1

     IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.P.GARG; DISTRICT JUDGE­IV 
                      NEW DELHI

ID No. 02403R0182842010

CR No. 90/2010



M/s International Panaacea Ltd
Through its Authorized representative 
Sh D N Singh
E­34, 2nd Floor, Connaught Circus
New Delhi     
                                                            .......              Petitioner 



                                    Versus 
P K Singh
Proprietor
M/s Haryana Seeds Corporaton
Radhika Market, Near Dhanipur Mandi
G T Road, aligarh, UP
                                                                    ........   Respondent 




              Date of institution of the appeal : 29/05/2010
              Date when reserved for orders  : 04/06/2010
              Date of announcement of order : 04/06/2010

ORDER:

1 Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 1.5.10 passed by Ms Geetanjali Goel, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, IPL Vs P K Singh 1 to 3 2 New Delhi District, New Delhi whereby complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, filed by the petition was dismissed for non­prosecution. 2 I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the summoned trial court record.

3 On perusal of the summoned trial court record, it reveals that complaint case u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the petitioner before the Ld. Trial Court on 16.4.2009. On 16.4.2009, respondent therein was ordered to be summoned for 17.7.2009. The petitioner however, failed to file the necessary process fee for summoning of the respondent despite various opportunities granted. On 1.5.10, Ld. Trial Court dismissed the complaint case for non­ prosecution as the petitioner failed to file the required process fee despite being given last opportunity.

4 Since the petitioner had taken no steps in compliance of order dated 16.4.2009 despite various opportunities, the Ld. Trial Court was left with no alternative but to dismiss the complaint case of the petitioner for non­prosecution. On that score order of the Ld. Trial Court does not suffer from any illegality. 5 However, for the reasons mentioned in the revision petition, petitioner should be given another opportunity to file the necessary process for service of the respondent as the previous lawyer despite specific instructions failed to file the process fee on record. The petitioner engaged another counsel who came to know about non­filing of the process fee by the previous counsel on 1.5.10. For the negligence of the petitioner for not filing the require process fee, he can be burdened with costs.

6 In view of above discussion, revision petition filed by the petitioner/revisionist is allowed subject to cost of Rs. 2000/­ to be deposited with IPL Vs P K Singh 2 to 3 3 DLSA. Impugned order dated 1.5.2010 is set aside. Complaint case is ordered to be restored to its original number. Ld. Trial court shall proceed with case on merit as per law.

7 Petitioner shall appear before the Ld.Trial Court on 8.6.2010. 8 TRC be returned back with copy of the order.

9 Appeal file be consigned to the record room. 





Announced in open court 
on dated 4/6/2010                           ( S.P.GARG)
                                           DISTRICT JUDGE­IV
                                                 NEW DELHI 




IPL Vs P K Singh                                                                   3 to 3