$-64 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 4TO4I2OTT HKK BUILDWELL PVT LTD & ORS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Abhay Mani Tripathi, Adv. VETSUS APPRECIATE FINCAP PVT LTD .... Respondent Through None CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA ORDER o Crl.M.A. 19106120II 09.12.2011 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. CRL.M.C. 4104/201 1 & Cr1.M.A. 19105/201 1 (stay) By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 2I't September, 20II whereby his right to cross-examine the authorized' representative of the complainant was further closed. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Petitioner has never taken an adjournment and since certain documents were required to be brought from Chandigarh for the cross-examination of the authorized representative of the complainant, the Petitioner No.2 had gone to Chandigarh to collect the same and thus further time was sought to cross- examine the complainant' s witness. CRL.M.C.4104/2011 page 1 of 2 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 1/ Perusal of the impugned order shows that the authorized representative of the complainant was partly examined by learned counsel for the accused on 16th Muy, 20tl and the matter was adjourned for 23'd June, }OLL On 23'd June ,2011 both the accused persons i.e. Petitioner No.2 & 3 were absent and thus the matter had to be adjourned to 4th August, 2011. Even on 4th August, 20IT one of the accused was absent and an adjournment was sought. The matter was subsequently fixed for 13th September,20lI. On 13th September,20Il the accused was again absent and the matter was once again adjoumed for 22"d September, 20IL On that day the adjoumment was sought on the ground mentioned above that one of the accused was not present in Delhi and had gone to Chandigarh to collect the documents. A perusal of the order shows that there has been a continuous default on account of the Petitioners. In view thereof, I do not find it to be a fit case to interfere with the order. Petition and application are dismissed. )lr""Xl" $"fq //" / Ir , MUKTA GUPTA.J DECEMBER 09,2011 'g' CRL.M.C. 4104/2011 page 2 of2