VIJAYKUMAR FADKE KASHINATH Vs. COUNTO AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) It is seen from the roznama of the Revisional Court that even though summons issued to the respondent had not been returned, the applicant was directed to take steps to serve the respondent. The roznama of 29.06.2015 discloses clearly that notice issued to the respondent had not been returned.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the respondent, strongly opposes this Criminal Writ Petition contending that, in case, the matter is remanded to Margao Court, it is going to be a futile exercise as after issuance of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment), Second Ordinance, 2015, now the Court of Panaji would have jurisdiction in the matter and the revision application before the Sessions Court mainly raises the jurisdictional objection. I must say that this very argument can also be canvassed before the Revisional Court. At this stage, this Court is not required to consider the same for the reason that the revision application is dismissed not on merits of the matter but, only for want of prosecution by the applicant.