M/S A & A Finance vs Sanjay Sainani
2022 Latest Caselaw 7680 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                CRM-33820 of 2017 in/and
                                CRM-A-2276-MA of 2017

                                DECIDED ON:25th July, 2022
M/s A&A Finance
                                                .....APPLICANT/APPELLANT
                                    VERSUS

Sanjay Sainani
                                                                 .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN.

Present:    Mr. J.S. Lalli, Advocate for applicant-appellant.

                 ***

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J (ORAL)

The application filed under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., is

accompanied by an application for condonation of delay of 102 days in filing

the appeal/application.

As per the contents of the application for condonation of delay, the

complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was

dismissed as premature on 27th April, 2017. Certified copy of the order was

applied on 2nd May, 2017, copy prepared on 6th May, 2017 and delivered to the

counsel on 9th May, 2017. Certified copy got mixed up with the papers of the

trial Court counsel. The applicant contacted his counsel of trial Court in end of

September, 2017 and gained knowledge that the complaint had been dismissed.

The pleadings in the application are factually wrong. From the

impugned order, it is forth coming that the applicant along with his counsel

was present on 27th April, 2017, when the complaint was dismissed. The

presence of the applicant itself falsifies the pleading that he had gained

knowledge of dismissal of complaint in September 2017.

1 of 2

CRM-33820 of 2017 in/and

The Supreme Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao,2012 (3)

RCR (Civil) 73: 2012 (2) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 482: 2012 (5) SCC

157, in paragraph 24 has held as under:

''24. What colour the expression ''sufficient cause'' would get in the factual matrix of a given case would largely depend on bona fide nature of the explanation. If the court finds that there has been no negligence on the part of the applicant and the cause shown for the delay does not lack bona fides, then it may condone the delay. If, on the other hand, the explanation given by the applicant is found to be concocted or he is thoroughly negligent in prosecuting his cause, then it would be a legitimate exercise of discretion not to condone the delay.''

Considering that the false plea has been made, no ground is made

out for condoning the delay in filing the application.

Dismissed.

Since the main case has been dismissed, the pending application, if

any is accordingly disposed of.

                                                (AVNEESH JHINGAN)
  th
25 July, 2022                                        JUDGE
reema

Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                      2 of 2