*-t i a 33 to 40 &' 42to 49 % 30.08.2010 Prcsent:Mr.VirrayKr.Shailenclra,Adv.forthePetitioncr. 'f- orr,rrro. ofi,rorr - otr,r,@*'' out''ot.. ^ ouol'o'o' q65lzuo. {e6rzoto- +el tzorc u qegtzotl 'fhese revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl'May' 2010 refusingtotakccognizanceandsutnmontheaccusedirrcomplaintsfiledundersectionl38 of thc Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881(Act, for short)' By the irnpugned order dated 18tl' May,20l0,thclearnedtrialcourthasdisrnissedthecornplaints,intcralia,lroldingtlralno nr"", of clelivery of noticc under Section 13 8(b) of the Act has been placed on record' Learnedcounselforthepetitionersubmitsthatthepetitionerhadfiledpostal receiptsissucclbypostofficeforsendingnoticesundersectionlj8provisoclause(b)of tlre Act. I-Ie Ielics upon the several. judgments of the Suprempe'Cour-t including V'Raia Kuntari vs. P.subbafanla Naittu and Anotlter' Q004\ 8 SCC 174 and D' vhrcd shivappa Vs.NandaBelliappn,(2006)6SCC456.I{ereliesrrpontlreBvidenceActandtheGeneral i:lauses Act. It is subrnitted that the question of 'service of notices' was not algued and questioned and i' this co*ection rre has drawn my atte'tio'to the order dated 21't April, 2010 passcd by the trial court. The said ordel.records that arguments r'vere heard on thc point of territorial juriscliction a'cl casd.#italou,"tA for orders on 15tr'May' 2010' On the saicl dale orders were not passed and the cases werc adjo'rned to l gtl' May, 2010 again for orctcrs. As noticecl abovc, the impugned order was passed on 18tl'May' 2010' In the irnpugned order, it was noticed and observed by the trial court that the question of t.erritorialjuLisdictionwasnotbeingexaminedinviewoftlrefactthatthecornplaintwas bcing dismisscd on the ground that there was no proof of delivery/service of notice issued undcr Scction 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act' In vicw of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tl'May' 2010 is liereby set and the matter is remanded back to the lear'ed triar court for fresh / e 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 hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments cited before me before the trial cour.t. It is clarified that this courl has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial co.rt w*r pass an order without being influenced with the observations made i'this older' 'I.he petitio'er will appeai before the trial court on 22"d September' 2010' The petitions are accordingly disposed of' I'r-L-'lL e' SANJIV KHANNA, J. AUGUST 30, 2010 J/VKR ) / f ii'$