SANGEETA GARG Vs. URMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 vide order of 14th January, 2016 cross-examination of the complainants was closed as many effective opportunities were granted to petitioner to cross examine the complainant but it has not been done. Aforesaid order takes note of the fact that previous costs of Rs. 13,000/- have not been paid by petitioner to the respondent. Review of order of 14th January, 2016 has been declined by the Trial Court vide order of 9th June, 2016. Petitioner had preferred a Revision Petition which was dismissed as time barred vide impugned order of 23rd October, 2017.

(2.) Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that on 14th January, 2016 Counsels not accommodated by Trial Court even though he was busy in another Court and the previous date i.e. 14th November, 2015 there was Court holiday and the matter was adjourned to 16th November, 2015. It is submitted that due to heavy board of the Courts on 16th November, 2015 petitioner's Counsel could not appear before the Trial Court for which cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed. So, it is submitted that impugned order ought to be set aside and petitioner be granted one effective opportunity to cross examine respondent-complainant.

(3.) Learned Counsel for respondent-complainant supports the impugned order and submits that petitioner has been deliberately delaying the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, it is admitted that previous costs of Rs.13,000/- has been paid to the complainant.