Susanta @ Sushanta Das & Anr vs State Of West Bengal

Jay Sengupta, J

This is an application challenging an order dated 26.06.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, North 24-Parganas, thereby allowing an application for condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act in connection with C. Case No.1664 of 2018.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits as follows. On 26th June, 2018, there was a resolution of the local bar association requesting the learned Trial Court not to pass any adverse order in case any of the parties does not appear. No learned Counsel was present either on behalf of the complainant or on behalf of the accused on that date. Yet, the learned Trial Court went on to decide the application for condonation of delay under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the premise that hearing had already been concluded earlier. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that the accused was not heard on the point of condonation of delay. In fact, the application for condonation of delay did not specifically explain the reason for the delay in filing the petition of complaint.

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant/opposite party files a certified copy of the order sheet of the learned Trial Court, which is taken on record, and submits as follows. It has been clearly indicated in the impugned order that hearing on the question of condonation of delay had been concluded earlier. The impugned order is a very well reasoned one and should not be interfered with. Good reasons have been cited to explain the delay caused in filing the petition of complaint.

I have heard the submissions of the learned Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have perused the revision petition and the order sheet of the learned Trial Court.

It appears that no one appeared on behalf of the parties on the date of the impugned order in view of the resolution of the local bar association not to pass any adverse order. On such a premise, if an order is passed on its merits without hearing the affected parties, one might very well argue that a litigant ought not be made to suffer for the non-appearance of his or her learned Counsel in an exceptional circumstance.

Besides, although a reasoned order was passed by the learned Trial Court, there is no indication in the earlier orders passed in the said case that the parties were heard on the question of condonation of delay.

In these circumstances, it will be just and fair if the question of condonation of delay is heard afresh.

It is made clear that the merits of the application under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act have not been gone into.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, I set aside the order dated 26th June, 2018 passed by the learned Trial Court and remand back the matter to the learned Trial Court to consider afresh the question of condonation of delay in accordance with law.

The learned Trial Court is requested to decide the issue of condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months for the next date of hearing.

With these observations, the revisional application is disposed of. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order may be supplied to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.