GNANAVADIVELAN Vs. R.DHANABALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 28.2.2019, passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham, in Cr. M.P. Nos.1087 and 1088/2019 in and by which the learned Magistrate, condoned the delay in filing the complaint on certain terms.

(2.) The case of the respondent herein/complainant before the court below is that the petitioners herein had borrowed certain huge sums of money and in lieu of repayment, had issued cheques to be presented on a particular date. However, on presentation of the cheque/(s), the same got dishonoured prompting the respondent herein/complainant to issue a lawyer's notice for which a reply was sent by the petitioners herein disputing the same. However, after receipt of the reply, the complaint was not filed within time, but with a delay, stating that since the respondent herein was immobile and suffering from back pain and was under treatment, he could not file the petition on time and, therefore, filed the miscellaneous petitions, praying the court below to condone the delay and for a direction to take the complaint on file. The court below, after hearing the parties and adverting to the submissions placed, condoned the delay of 40 days in filing the complaint on condition that the petitioners herein pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- in each of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order of the court below in condoning the delay, the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the delay in filing the complaint is fatal on the ground that though the respondent herein/complainant claims that he was bed ridden and immobile and was suffering from back pain and was taking treatment, however, he has not filed any proof to substantiate his ailment and in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate his ailment, the court below ought not have condoned the delay. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sections 142 (b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks about 'sufficient cause' and not just a reason and, therefore, in the absence of sufficient cause shown by the respondent herein, the condonation of delay is per se impermissible.