Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the District Commission, the appellant - opposite party has preferred the present appeal contending that the impugned judgment is based on surmises and conjectures, hence perverse and is liable to be set aside. It is further stated in the memo of appeal that the District Commission has failed to give any finding on preliminary objections dated 28.03.2016 that the complaint is time barred and question of jurisdiction of hearing of the case alleging dishonour of cheque is exclusive jurisdiction of criminal court under Negotiable Act. It is further averred that the District Commission has wrongly relied upon xerox copies of receipt alleged to have been issued by the answering opposite party and cheque alleged to have been issued by the answering opposite party. The impugned judgment is not a speaking order and the District Commission did not consider the pleadings of the answering opposite party regarding procuring both documents by the complainant in connivance with Munshi of Bhatta to implicate falsely answering opposite party. Therefore, the District Commission has exercised its jurisdiction by entertaining the time barred cheque dishonor case which is not vested in it by law. It is further contended that the District Commission has believed in cock and bull story that the answering opposite party instead of supplying bricks or refunding amount against it made it double and handed over said cheque of Rs. 6 Lakhs. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the District Commission concerned is against law and is liable to be set aside.