Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Cr Rev / 98/2025
PARVEEN KUMAR BHADRA Vs. BHAGIRATH KUMAR
ANAND
13.12.2025
Present: Sh. Aziz Ullah and Sh. Neyaz Ahmad, Advocates for
the revisionist.
Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Arguments on revision heard. Put up for orders at
4:00 pm.
(Twinkle Wadhwa)
ASJ-02(NE)/ KKD/Delhi
13.12.2025/ap
At 4:00 pm
Present: None.
1. The present revision has been filed against the order
dated 23.08.2025 passed by the Ld. JMFC-04, North-East
District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, whereby the complaint
filed by the complainant was dismissed in default for non-
prosecution.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the
complainant, Parveen Kumar Bhadra, in the year 2016. However,
during the pendency of the complaint, the complainant expired
and his legal heirs were brought on record. The respondent was
summoned in the case and notice was framed against him in
January 2018. Thereafter, no evidence has been recorded in the
matter till date due to the non-appearance of one party or the
other.
Contd…..
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist
that the original complainant has already expired and his wife,
who is an uneducated lady, is pursuing the case. She had engaged
a counsel who could not appear regularly, due to which the case
came to be dismissed. It is further submitted that on 23.08.2025,
the lawyers were on strike, as mentioned in the order sheet dated
23.08.2025, and therefore the counsel could not appear before the
Court. Hence, it is prayed that the present revision be allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent submits that the case had been dismissed earlier as
well and that the revisionist does not deserve any leniency.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties
and have perused the record.
6. Perusal of the file reveals that the present case was
earlier dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated
02.02.2019. Thereafter, a revision was preferred and the case was
restored.
7. Perusal of the Trial Court Record (TCR) shows that
on 23.08.2025, the complainant did not appear and, consequently,
the case was dismissed. It is also recorded in the order sheet that
the complainant had not been appearing for several previous
dates. The record further reveals that no one appeared on behalf
of the complainant on three dates prior thereto. It is also evident
from the record that the proceedings could not progress as the
Contd…..
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
accused was not appearing regularly and warrants were
repeatedly issued against him.
8. Upon due consideration of the submissions
advanced and on perusal of the record, this Court finds
considerable force in the arguments raised on behalf of the
revisionist. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the
proceedings before the Trial Court, the revisionist expired.
Thereafter, the responsibility of pursuing the case fell upon his
wife, who is an uneducated lady and not conversant with court
procedures. In such circumstances, her inability to appear before
the Trial Court on the relevant date, on account of not being
aware of the next date of hearing, cannot be construed as
deliberate negligence or willful default.
9. This Court also takes judicial notice of the fact that
on the relevant date, members of the Bar were on strike and were
not permitted to appear before the courts, even through online
mode. The said circumstance lends further credence to the
explanation furnished, as effective legal assistance was
unavailable and the litigant was left without proper guidance. The
explanation offered thus appears bona fide, reasonable and
plausible.
10. It is a settled principle of law that procedural rules
are handmaids of justice and should not be applied in a manner
so as to defeat substantive rights.
Contd….
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is
allowed and the order dated 23.08.2025 of the Ld. Trial Court is
hereby set aside. The matter is restored to its original number
before the Trial Court to be decided afresh on merits, in
accordance with law.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
13. File be consigned to the record room.
14. TCR be sent back.
(Twinkle Wadhwa)
ASJ-02(NE)/ KKD/Delhi
13.12.2025/ap
-- 4 of 4 --