9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1894X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... December, 2015 when the complainant along with counsel appeared before the Court he came to know that the complaint had already been dismissed for non-prosecution as also the fact that the counsel for the petitioner was present before the court on each and every date, this court deems it fit to restore the complaint to its original position subject to cost. The impugned order dated 19th November 2015 dismissing Complaint Case which was pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate North Rohini court is restored to its position subject to the petitioner paying a cost of ₹5,000/- to the respondent on the date before the learned Trial Court which is fixed as 2nd September, 2019 when the petitioner with his counsel and respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without interest to him and she promised to return the same within a period of six months. It was mutually agreed that in case the said amount of ₹3,50,000/- is repaid by the respondent within 6 months that is on 5th June 2013 then no interest will be charged by the petitioner but in case the respondent fails to repay the said amount on or before 5th June 2013 then interest will be charged by the petitioner on the loan amount from the date when the loan was granted. 4. On expiry of six months that is in the month of July 2013, petitioner approached the respondent and asked him to re-pay the said amount but the respondent requested further two months time on the pretext that he could not arrange the money and time was extended for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15, when notice was required to be framed the case was transferred to Metropolitan Magistrate-01, North, Rohini vide circular dt. 11th March 2015 and the matter was fixed for 23rd July 2015. On 23rd July, 2015 none appeared before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at Rohini District Court as the advocates were on strike. On 19th November 2015, the complaint was dismissed on account of non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 8. Considering the explanation rendered by the petitioner that on 23rd July, 2015 because of the strike of the lawyers neither the lawyer nor the complainant could appear and the clerk of the counsel for the complainant wrongly noted the next date as 1st December, 2015 and thus they could not appear before the T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
