33 to 40 &. 42 to 49 % 30.08.2010 Prcscnt: Mr. Vinay Kr. Shailendra, Adv. for the Petitioner. {- crt.Itev.p. Nos. 45212010. 453/2010. 45412010. 455/2010. 456/2010. qstlzorc^ asst20r0. afhtii,^ 46U2010. 462120rc. a$120r0. 464120t0^ 46s120r0. 46612010. 46712010 &. 46812010 'I'lese revision petitions are directed against the order dated 18tl'May,2010 tefusing to take cognizance and summon the accused in complaints filed under Section 13 8 of thc Negotiable Instrument Act, 1 881(Act, for short)' By the impug'ed order dated 1 8tl' May, 2010, the learncd tr-ial court has dismissed the cornplaints, intel alia, holding that no proof of delivery of notice under Section 13S(b) of the Act has been placed on reeord' Learned counscl for the petitioner submits that thc pctitioner had filed postal receipts issued by post office for selding notices uncler Section,l38 proviso clause (b) of tlre Act. IIe relics upon the several judgments of the Sunrern/c Court including V'ilaia Ktmmri Vs. P.Sttbbaranra Naidu and Anotlter, (2004\ 8 SCC 17 4 and D' Vinod Slivappa vs. Nancla Belliappa,(2o0o 6 scc 456. FIe relies upon the Evidence Act and the General olatrses Act. It is submittcd that the question of 'service of notices' was not argued and clucstioncd ancl in this connection he has dlawn rny attention to the order dated 21t'April, 2010 passcd by the trial courl. The said order.records that alguments were heard on the poirrr of tegitorial jurisdiction und .ur8#Sffirn"a for olders on 15tr' May, 2010' On the said clate orders wcre not passed and the cases were adjotuned to 18tl' May, 2010 again for orclels. As noticcd above, the impugned order was passed on 18tl'May,2010' In the irnpugne<l oLclcr, it was noticed and observed by the trial court that the question of territorial juriscliction was not being examined in view of the fact that the complaint was bei'g disrnissed on the ground that there was no proof of delivery/service of notice issued under Section 138 proviso clause (b) of the Act' In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order dated 18tl'May,2010 is hcrebv set and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial court for fresh 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 a hearing. Petitioner will be entitled to rely upon judgments cited before me beforc the trial court. It is clarified that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits and the trial c.nrt rv*r pass an order. witrrout bei'g influenced with the observations made in this order' 'fhe petitio'er will appeal before the trial court on 22''d September'' 2010' 'fhe pctitions are accoldingly disposed of' AUGUST 30,201.0 JNKR ./ /f -/(-,, | | / /"tl< SANJIVKHANNA, J.