-3- IN THE I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED 'I'HiS THE 93'" DAY OF JULY 2008 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SGBHASH B.A1)I_ .. _: Sri. B. Rama Singh S/o. Basavan Singh Aged about 60 years No.251f5, Police Station Road, K, R. Puram, _BANGALORE-560 O36. PETI7f'IONER (By M] s.K.Rama Bhat & Ass;c;§§«ia,tcs~.,_g¢1sa§;)--'Li%%;% AND: % Sri. M. lj S/o. Muniisswamy ' Aged ab011t"43 'fiffiaifi . . Proprietor, Hmech Ciompany Near Kodigehalty Railway Gate. 5 Kodigeha_i1y,_ * ~ _..3_gNGA_L()R£;:-5§o 092.' ..... .. « .at--vNcn3.vCmss. .. fi:'3s3*~-s1n§ Ménjiiuath V. Rayappa. Adv.) Viru'peksh&? '".a* Chanalakshmi. Laytaut, Kodigchally L """'vBANGA£,§)RI_§}-56;} 09?. .. RESPONDENT
M Crixninai Reviskm Petition is filed under Section 397
V. praying to set; aside the order Dt.12.06.2007 passed in
No.1470/2007 on the filn ofX}I Add]. C.M.M. Bangalore.
This Revision Petition coming on for Admission this day,
.. the Court made the following:
9.32.3.8
Though this matter was eafled twice, none appeaxed for the
respondent
2. This Revision is directed against the _
12.6.2007.
3. Petitioner is the complainant fie
compiaint for an ofienee -..1V_1nde’r of;the ” L’
Negotiable instruments Aet uh apgplicefion for
condonation of delay undef u9.”i’.-Act. It is stated
that, the legal notioew.issue:d”under’-RPAbfon’ f2i.11.2006, but
neither the was xetumed.
Thereafter, eave. a1.eomp}.e’int on 20*” January 2007.
With this exthiplen”.-=:1io11..’_. sought for condonation of
delay. _v sa1d’ “aj3p1ieat:Ai'(:nh”is xejected by the 1r1ai’ court,
.4′;’h’.jVg;x hj”iiispute that, the kgal notice sent by the
{V neither the aelcnowledgement nor the cover has
” zNo:doubt, the petitioner afier 30 days should have
V But in this case, he did take steps to enquire
V’ Postal Department and thereafier complaint is filed. it
submitted that, the Post Ofioe not given any
‘ information regarding the service of notice. It is under these
r%>°r
-3,
circumstances. the petitioner under bonafidc imgrcssion that. he
may rcceivc the acknawlcdgczncnt, was waiting for thc ~’3_ame.
Though there is a xapse on the pan of the petitioner in ziét’
immediately, but nevertheless. the intention is bonasfidc, V’
clear from his enquiry made on 7:7h.e:§-::
c1mu’ mstances should have been :f
In View of the sanlc, I allow’ set VV
aside the impugned order court
to reconsider the saga’: 2 order by
considering the after issuing
notice to the
Séflw
§ué§%
