Sri B Rama Singh S/O Basavan Singh vs Sri M Rajanna S/O Muniswamy on 9 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri B Rama Singh S/O Basavan Singh vs Sri M Rajanna S/O Muniswamy on 9 July, 2008
Author: Subhash B.Adi
-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§%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *