1. The present application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) F.T.C./Additional Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (in short “Magistrate), whereby the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by opposite party no.2 has been allowed as well as the summoning order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Magistrate whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial in Complaint Case No. 2495 of 2024, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “NI Act”), Police Station Kotwali Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar, (Kamran v. Sajid Hussain).

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that opposite party no.2 filed a complaint before the Magistrate on 04.06.2025 under Section 138 of NI Act, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Magistrate passed an order on 04.06.2025 for registration of the case and took cognizance without disposal of the application for condonation of delay. Opposite party No. 2 had filed an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 142 of NI Act, which has been allowed vide impugned order dated 26.11.2025.

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the provisions of the Limitation Act are not applicable and as such the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been rejected by the Magistrate.

4. It has been further submitted that the Magistrate did not issue notice to the applicant before allowing the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, passed the order on the application for condonation of delay vide order dated 26.11.2025.

5. It has been further submitted that opposite party No. 2 had not properly explained the delay and had not mentioned any specific reason or sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Thereafter, the applicant was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act vide order dated 01.06.2026.

6. The main ground taken by learned counsel for the applicant is that, without affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint under Section 138 of NI Act could not have been allowed. The applicant has a right to file objections and to be heard.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:

(i) Standard Chartered Bank v. Ministry of Home Affairs, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1368;

(ii) Ratanlal Jain vs. Ram Awatar Agrawal, CRLMC No. 2514 of 2016 (Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack);

(iii) Sumit Deb v. Joy Deb, 2022 SCC OnLine Tri 373;

(iv) State of Maharashtra vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre, (1995) 1 SCC 42;

(v) S. Nagesh v. Shobha S. Aradhya, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 18;

(vi) Sankar Choudhury v. State of Tripura, (2019) 2 TLR 134;

(vii) Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases &Ors., (2014) 1 SCC 721; and

(viii) Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala v. Eastern Roadways (P)Ltd., (2006) 134 Comp Cas 195 : 2006 SCC OnLine Kar 399.

8. Shri Mohd. Mansoor,, On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that in the proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, delay is to be condoned by the Court and the same is a matter between the Court and the complainant. While considering the application, the Magistrate has committed no illegality or infirmity vide the impugned order dated 26.11.2025.

9. It has further been submitted that the proviso to Section 142(1)(b) of NI Act provides the cognizance of a complaint may be taken by the Court after the prescribed period, if the complainant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making a complaint within such period.

10. It has been further submitte