Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 3013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
V. Parthiban, J.
Gnanavadivelan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
R. Dhanabalan – Respondent
Crl. R.C. (MD) Nos. 416, 417 of 2019, Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 6011 and 6012 of 2019
Decided On : 20-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T.S.R. Venkataramana
For the Respondent: C. Mayilvahana Rajendran
Headnote:
Negotiable Instruments Act - Sections 142(b) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Condo nation of delay – Dishonor of cheques - Case of respondent herein/complainant before court below is that petitioners herein had borrowed certain huge sums of money and in lieu of repayment had issued cheques to be presented on a particular date - However on presentation of cheque same got dishonored prompting respondent herein/complainant to issue a lawyers notice for which a reply was sent by petitioners herein disputing same - However after receipt of reply complaint was not filed within time but with a delay stating that since respondent herein was immobile and suffering from back pain and was under treatment he could not file petition on time and therefore filed miscellaneous petitions praying court below to condone delay and for a direction to take complaint on file - Court below after hearing parties and adverting to submissions placed condoned delay of days in filing complaint on condition that petitioners herein pay a cost in each of petition - Aggrieved by said order of court below in condoning delay present revision petitions have been filed by petitioners – Held, It is common knowledge that for ailment of nature put forth people take treatment by consuming medicines after consulting medical practitioners – Therefore necessary inference that Court has to draw in present case is that complainant was taking treatment and was not hospitalized - Production of certain prescriptions would have been an additive factor in armor of complainant in canvassing cause for condoning the delay - However non-production of same alone cannot be put against complainant more so considering fact that there have been financial transactions between complainant and revision petitioner has been averred even by said revision petitioner - Mere non-production of documentary proof towards reason claimed cannot be put against complainant in a transaction of this nature and this Court has duty to weed out grains from chaff and render substantial justice - Further it is also to be borne in mind that though there is delay which according to revision petitioner wavers between days and not clearly spelt out by complainant yet it is to be pointed out that delay is not so very enormous so as to cause detriment to petitioners - Averments in complaint as well as certain averments in counter of petitioner herein in legal notice relating to financial transactions between both parties really tilt balance of scales in favor of complainant for condoning the delay - Therefore for reasons aforesaid this Court finds that sufficient cause as mandated by Supreme Court in above referred to decisions has been pleaded by complainant which has been accepted by court below though through a cryptic order and therefore same cannot be said to be perverse or illegal - This Court is of considered view that cause shown is sufficient enough for court below to condone delay which court below has rightly accepted - Petitions are dismissed
ORDER :
V. Parthiban, J.
1. The present revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 28.2.2019, passed by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Natham, in Cr. M.P. Nos. 1087 & 1088/2019 in and by which the learned Magistrate, condoned the delay in filing the complaint on certain terms.
2. The case of the respondent herein/complainant before the court below is that the petitioners herein had borrowed certain huge sums of money and in lieu of repayment, had issued cheques to be presented on a particular date. However, on presentation of the cheque/(s), the same got dishonoured prompting the respondent herein/complainant to issue a lawyer's notice for which a reply was sent by the petitioners herein disputing the same. However, after receipt of the reply, the complaint was not filed within time, but with a delay, stating that since the respondent herein was immobile and suffering from back pain and was under treatment, he could not file the petition on time and, therefore, filed the miscellaneous petitions, praying the court below to condone the delay and for a direction to take the complaint on file. The court below, after hearing the parties and adverting to the submissions placed, condoned the delay of 40 days in filing the complaint on condition that the petitioners herein pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- in each of the petition. Aggrieved by the said order of the court below in condoning the delay, the present revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the delay in filing the complaint is fatal on the ground that though the respondent herein/complainant claims that he was bed ridden and immobile and was suffering from back pain and was taking treatment, however, he has not filed any proof to substantiate his ailment and in the absence of any documentary evidence to substantiate his ailment, the court below ought not have condoned the delay. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Sections 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act speaks about 'sufficient cause' and not just a reason and, therefore, in the absence of sufficient cause shown by the respondent herein, the condonation of delay is per se impermissible.
4. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the delay shown varies from 31 days in one place to 40 days in another place, which itself creates a doubt on the case filed by the respondent herein. It is further submitted that even according to the respondent herein, he had taken treatment from 20.04.2018 to 26.05.2018, yet the complaint was filed only on 06.06.2018 and, the reason for delay between 26.05.2018 and 06.06.2018 is not known. Further, the reply to the notice was sent by the petitioners on 23.03.2018 and the respondent herein was under treatment only from 20.04.2018 and no cause is shown for not taking any steps during the intervening period. In fine, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent herein has not shown 'sufficient cause' as mandated u/s. 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for two different spells and in the absence of proper and justifiable reasons, the condonation of delay ordered by the court below is unsustainable and, therefore, prayed for setting aside the order passed by the court below.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contentions, relied on the following decisions to drive home the point that condonation of delay is not a matter of routine and that sufficient and justifiable cause should be shown to condone the delay:-
(i) Basawaraj & Anr. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013 (14) SCC 81);
(ii) Sundar Gananaolivu Vs. Rajendran Gnanavolivu (2003 (1) LW 585); and
(iii) Office of the Post Master General & Ors. Vs. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 2474-2475/2012-Dated 24.02.2012)
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/
