AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Subhash B Adi
There is a delay of 420 days in filing the revision petition. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that she is a chronic patient and was admitted to the hospital and she faced serious problems. She has also stated that she is an innocent woman. Though the reasons assigned in the application are not satisfactory, in the interest of justice, the matter was considered on merits.
The respondent is the complainant, who has alleged that the petitioner herein had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same along with interest at 18% p.a, In this regard, on 23.10.2002. the petitioner had issued a cheque for Rs. 2,00,000/- The said cheque was presented to the Bank and the Bank has returned the same with an endorsement "Insufficient Fund". The respondent had issued a legal notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the cheque amount. The petitioner gave a reply, denying the liability.
Before the trial court, the respondent got himself examined as PW.1 and also produced ExsP1 to P9. The petitioner neither entered the witness box nor produced any documents. The only defence taken by the petitioner before the trial court was that she had not issued the cheque. However, the signature is not disputed and in Ex.P8-Reply the petitioner has sought for three months'' time to repay the amount.
The trial court on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found that the petitioner herein admitted the signature and the liability is proved and held that the alleged offence is proved. The lower appellate court confirmed the judgment of the trial court. Even on merit also, I do not find any justification to interfere with the judgments of the courts below.
Accordingly, I.A.I/07 filed for condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the revision petition also stands dismissed.