Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: MHMM180064512023
Misc Cases/5800180/2023
Jeevan Laxman Viyala Vs. Ganesh Prabhu
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (FIRST CLASS),
58th COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXH.01
1. This is an application filed for condonation of delay of 191
days caused for filing complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instrument Act.
2. Respondent proposed accused objected the application vide
affidavit in reply Exh.7. Thereby respondent/accused have taken plea of
abnormal delay, no sufficient reason etc. According to the
respondents/accused the delay is of 211 days and not of 191 days.
3. Heard both sides.
4. On hearing both sides one thing is quite clear that there was
commercial transaction between the parties. Complainant has invested a
some amount with the accused for gaining profit out of his business.
According to him, he relied upon promises of making payment given by
the accused/respondents. As accused sent part payment through on-line
mode which compelled him to believe words of the accused and that has
resulted into delay in filing the complaint beyond statutory period.
5. No doubt reason of believing promise of other side for delay can
not be said to be legal ground. However, at the same time considering
part payment made by the accused after issuance of notice it appears
probable human conduct. The same is more than sufficient to accept and
believe statement of the complainant. Remedy under section 138 of
Negotiable Instrument Act is a statutory right conferred upon the
complainant with discretion left upon the court to consider the complaint
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Misc Cases/5800180/2023
Order Below Exh.01
even after statutory period. What is important to be looked into is the
right conferred upon the complainant. Delay can not vitiate the statutory
right or remedy. At the same time, at the most, the complainant can
compensate the respondent for causing delay. The remedy remains intact
even if the ground for condonation may not be legal. Therefore, in order
to give an opportunity of hearing both parties on merits, it is necessary to
condone the delay. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R
1) Application is allowed subject to cost of Rs.100/- to be paid
to the respondent No.1 and 2.
2) Costs are condition precedent for registration of the
complaint.
3) Order dictated and pronounced in open court.
( M. P. Saraf )
Judicial Magistrate, (First Class),
Date : 21.04.2025 58th Court, Bandra, Mumbai.
J.O.Code: MH01362
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Misc Cases/5800180/2023
Order Below Exh.01
CERTIFICATE
I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F. file Order are same, word to word as per the
original Order.
Name of Stenographer : Mrs. Aditi Ravikiran Dalvi
Court : Judicial Magistrate (First Class), 58th Court,
Bandra, Mumbai.
Dictated in open court on : 21.04.2025.
Transcribed and Typed on : 21.04.2025.
Order printed and Signed on : 21.04.2025.
Order Uploaded on : 21.04.2025.
-- 3 of 3 --