{ a" Iil 24, 25, 29-40, 42-45, 47 -55, 57-59, 60, 62-69, 70, 72-95 % 13.09.2010 Prescnt: Mr. V.K. Shailcndra for the petitioners. -r' ctuMINArr REVISION I'ETITIOIN NOS. 49712010, 498/2010" 502-513/2010. 515-519/2010, 520-529/2010. 530-531/2010. 533/2010, 535-541/2010, 543/2010. 545-559/2010 + I . 'I hcsc rcvision petitions are directed against thc order dated l Bth May, 2010 rcfusing to takc cognizance and summon the accuscd in complaints filccl undcr Scction 138 of the Negotiable Instrumcnts Act, 1881 (thc Act, for short). By thc irnpugncd order datcd 18tr'May, 2070,learned trial court has dismissed thc complaints, inter alia, holding that no proof of delivcry of notico undcr Scction 138(b) of the Act has bccn placcd on record. Lcarncd couuscl for thc pclilioncr subrnits that the petitioncr had filcd poslal lcccipts issucd by thc post office for scnding of noticcs under Section 138 proviso clauso (b) of thc Act. IIc relies upon the Evidence Act, 1872 and thc (]cneral Clauscs Act, 1897. IIe has also placed reliance on several jndgnrcnts of thc Suprcmc Court including V. Ruja Kumari versus p. Subburuma Naicltt, (.2004) 8 SCC 774 and D. Vinod Shivappa versus Nando llelliappo, (2Qq6) 6 SCC 456. IJe subrnils that the cluestion o1' scrvicc of noticc was not argued and qucstioned. IIe states that argumcnts wcrc hcard on the point of temitorial jurisdiction only. IIe subrnits that in casc thc clucstion of service of notice had becn raiscd by the learned trial ooul't, hc wclr.tld havc refct'red to and relied upoll thc aforcsaid judgrnents and Scction 114 of thc lividence Act, 1872 and Section 27 of the Gencral Clauses Act, 1897. IIe has drawn my attcntion to carlicr ordcr passed by Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified t J this Court in Crirninal Itevision Petition No. 45212010 and other connectcd cases on 30tl'August, 2010- 2. In vicw of'thc aforesaid position, thc impugned order dated 18'l' May, 2010 is hcrcby sct asidc and thc matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fiesh healing and decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments and statutory provisions in supporl of his contcntion. 3. It is clarificd that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and thc trial courl will pass an ordcr without being influenced by the observations made in this order. 4. Thc pctitioner will appear before the trial court on 5'r' October, 2010. l'hc pctitions are accordingly disposcd of. /C ,ll ( L - IL SANJIV KHANNA. J. SEPTEMI}ER 13, 2O1O VKIT J {'