i- v Orders IN THE HIGIT COIIRT OF DELHI AT NEW DELIil cRt,MA {r7 /2OO3 Sr. No. M/S ADARSH EI.IIERPREISF]S Through lvlr.Saqjay 'n-!J!-. --- -- --... rt:tll.l(,llr[ Gr:r:la- Advor:at.e ah versu$ hf/S KAT!{AL EN|ERPRISES & ORS. ..... Respcrndrnts Througtr -ttLn a!f- trt-rlI.CLtll; I{OH'BLE bTR,.JI'STICE R.g. SODEff ORDER 08,12,2003 T,eave ta appeal is gr"anted. Cr'l.Misc.Applicatian S7l200s allrrwecl and disposecl r-rf. cd.A.?ol /200s : T,ef this appeal be numbered. , Counsel for the appellant submlts that on 5'h Aprii, 2003 , ccrinplaltratrt was present aft:n$ udth the cr:unsel at I l.3O .a.111. in the Court, hcrwever, prlor the,reto the trlattr,r was c.alled'crut and clismissecl in ckfault. He subntlts that t]r* (rrchlr shret SHRI SITYAM SALES 02-03 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared the digital data is as per the physical file Signature Not Verified 37 Sr. No. Orders shows that neither the cnirrplainant ncrr the accused was prese.nt tht:ugh tl:e sutnnl(-nls wel-e lssur.d to the accused vlde t:rdrr dalecl foJtt.. Januarlr, 2003. Immediat.ely An applica.tian fcrr lnxlret:tlcrn warr rrtu:rvecl whe-n lt was founci trlrt tirat ttre c.crmplalnt iras beerr cllsmissecl In clefault, Aggrir-.vecl the-retrf a re-vlsl(]n was rnt:rved nnde-r *Ser:ilrrn 397/$91) rrf the Crrcle of Crinrinal Prtrt::eclure agaJnst the order dated 24h Jarruary, 2.003, whlch was dlsmlssed vide order dated 5* Aprii, 2OOB on ttr.e ground that It was not maintalnable. Thereafter, the c.rrmplainant has filecl tl:Is prtititrn urlcler *Set:.tiort -178 rrf the Ccrch= r-rf Crlmiflal Prttt::eclure. Courrsd submits that althcrugh he uras in court along with the complainant yei in the ear'ly hout's the maifer- was dismlssed ln defar,rlt. He snl:mits that clelay In reac:hing the r::ourt was tlt"t* to traffir: Jam ancl ttrat the samtr was l:qrond lils t:.ontrol. Heard t-:t-rlrflsel ftrr the a1:pellant. ln viernr of the far::ts ttrat tkre accused has not been summoned nor did he appear on 5d' April, 200iJ, thet-e is no need tcr issue trr-ltic.e to him itr this appeal, Ct:nsecluently, affer hearing c.ounsel firr the alri:e.112rt, I arn satisfied ihat appeiiani's absence on 5e Aprii, 2003 before r) - Zt- SHRT SI{YAM SALES 02-03 4 Sr. No. Orders -3- the trial r-:olrrt was inadve.rtent ancl beyrrnd cr-rntrol. I the-refr:rgin Lhe inleresl. ofjttslir:e, sel aside lhe oreler clalecl 5s April, 2OO3 and restore the cr-rmplaint tcr its trrl$nal file ancl nLIIIil)er. rrf. ffith this Crl.Appeal tgllZOOS is allowed and disposed W R.S. BODIII, J Dasti. DECEMBESI 08, 2003 dr .r SHRT SIIYAM SALES 02.03