YASHODHAN INFOTECH Vs. CONSOURSE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint of the applicant under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate came to be dismissed on 4.3.2009. The order shows that, in spite of sufficient opportunity the complainant failed to lead the evidence. The matter was pending for evidence from 7.6.2007. The complainant had applied for adjournment. The reason for the adjournment is not reflected in the order. The copy of the application showing the reason is not produced by the applicant. The applicant's Advocate states that, on 4.3.2009 the Junior Advocate who had papers, met with an accident. He cannot show the particulars of the accident.

(2.) The earlier adjournment application, which is shown in the order as Exh. 116, is also not produced. The applicant's Advocate states that, the applicantcomplainant was hospitalized on the earlier date of hearing when the application Exh. 116 was made. It is not known whether the application shows the reason of hospitalization of the applicant complainant. The particulars of the hospitalization is not shown to the Court when called.

(3.) The complaint was of the year 2002. Process was issued on 7.12.2002. Thereafter summons was served. The last Vakalatnama came to be filed on 7.6.2007. The matter was pending for evidence since then.