IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. Revision petition number/Year of revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondents' namesRESPONDENTS
INDEX
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
DATEREVISIONIST
PLACETHROUGH
COUNSEL
Counsel's name & ASSOCIATES
IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. Revision petition number/Year of revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondents' namesRESPONDENTS
MEMO OF PARTIES
Revisionist firm name
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
Proprietor's name
Revisionist's name and addressREVISIONIST
V/S
Respondent 1 firm name
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
Respondent 1 proprietor's nameRESPONDENT NO. 1
Respondent 2 proprietor's name
PROPRIETOR OF
Respondent 2 firm name
BOTH AT:-
Respondents' addressRESPONDENT NO. 2
DATEREVISIONIST
PLACETHROUGH
COUNSEL
Counsel's name & ASSOCIATES
IN THE COURT OF THE LEARNED DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 399 OF THE Cr.P.C. ON BEHALF OF THE REVISIONIST AGAINST THE ORDER DATED Date of impugned MM order PASSED BY THE LEARNED M.M. IN "M/S Complainant firm name VERSUS M/S Accused firm name"
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
1.That the present revision petition is preferred before this Hon'ble Court against the order dated Date of impugned order passed in the matter under the title Complainant name in under-title Versus Accused name in under-title, registered as Case No. Trial case number, pending before the Hon'ble Court of Trial court name, M.M.-06, North District, whereby the following order was passed:
"None for the Complainant.
None has appeared on behalf of the complainant since morning.
Perusal of the record reveals that none appeared on behalf of the complainant on the last three dates of hearing. In these circumstances, it is clear that the complainant is not interested in pursuing the present complaint. The complaint is hereby dismissed in default for non-prosecution and non-appearance.
File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance."
2.That the complaint was filed on Date of filing of complaint against the accused persons for non-payment of the bill amount due to the complainant/revisionist. The respondent/accused issued a cheque towards part payment of Rs. Amount of part-payment cheque (₹)/-, which was dishonoured on Date of cheque dishonour. The transaction between the complainant/revisionist and the respondent/accused was a business transaction.
3.That the complaint was registered as Case No. Trial case number and the learned M.M. was pleased to issue summons to the respondents/accused. The said summons were not received back by Date summons not received back, whereupon the learned M.M. was pleased to issue fresh summons to the respondents/accused and further directed service of summons through the concerned SP. The learned M.M. also directed the process server to affix the summons in the event of refusal or unavailability of the accused, and simultaneously issued process through speed post. The matter was thereafter put up for Date matter fixed after summons.
4.That on Date bailable warrant issued, since effective service of summons had been effected upon the respondent/accused, and in spite of receipt of summons the respondent/accused chose not to appear before the learned M.M., the learned M.M. was pleased to issue bailable warrants against the respondent/accused in a sum of Rs. Amount of first bailable warrant (₹)/-, and the matter was fixed for Date matter fixed after warrant.
5.That on Date second warrant issued, the report of execution of the bailable warrants had not been received back by the Court, whereupon fresh bailable warrants in a sum of Rs. Amount of second bailable warrant (₹)/- were issued against the respondent/accused through the concerned SHO, and the matter was fixed for Date matter fixed after second warrant.
6.That again, on Date third warrant issued, the report of the bailable warrants had not been received back by the Court, and the warrants were ultimately received back unexecuted. The learned M.M. was pleased to issue bailable warrants in a sum of Rs. Amount of third bailable warrant (₹)/- against the respondent/accused in the matter, to be served through the concerned SP, and the matter was fixed for Date matter fixed after third warrant.
7.That on Date of counsel's non-appearance, the learned Presiding Officer was on leave, and the counsel for the revisionist could not appear before the Court of the learned M.M., since the counsel for the complainant was contesting the Bar Council Elections, which were held on Election first date and Election second date of Election month. For the said reason, neither the counsel nor any proxy appeared before the Court of the learned M.M., Rohini Courts, Delhi.
8.That after the elections, in the beginning of Month after elections, the associates namely First associate's name and Second associate's name, who were working with the counsel for the revisionist/complainant, left the office of the counsel and commenced independent practice, and as a result could not convey the exact date of hearing to the diary of the revisionist/complainant's counsel. Consequently, on Date of dismissal in default, before Court of dismissal (judge/court name), nobody could appear before the learned M.M. The counsel could not appear before this Hon'ble Court because the internal elections of the Bar Council take place only after a long interval, i.e. approximately Approximate months between elections months, and the counsel was thereafter elected as Hony. Secretary of the Bar Council of Delhi, owing to which he was unable to attend to his legal work during that period and consequently could not communicate the position to the revisionist/complainant. It is candidly admitted on the part of the counsel that it was purely his fault that he could not convey the same to the revisionist/complainant.
9.That the absence of the applicant on the date of hearing was neither intentional nor wilful, but was occasioned by the sufficient reasons set out above.
10.That in the present case, the respondent/accused never appeared before the Court of the learned M.M., in spite of the bailable warrants issued by the learned M.M. The counsel for the revisionist/complainant, on the other hand, consistently complied with the directions of the learned M.M. and deposited process fee on four occasions, but the respondent chose not to appear before the Court of the learned M.M., Rohini Courts, Delhi.
11.That the total outstanding amount due from the respondent exceeds Rs. Total outstanding amount (₹)/-, and the dealings were in respect of fruits, since the revisionist is a fruit trader and wholesaler of imported fruits, supplying fruits all over India. The transaction between the revisionist and the respondent was a business transaction, whereby the respondent purchased fruits from the revisionist and has failed to pay the amount due to the revisionist for more than Number of years unpaid years.
12.That in the interest of justice, it is therefore demanded that the case be restored to its original position, so that the substantial dispute involved in the case may be adjudicated upon on its merits by this Hon'ble Court.
13.That after the month of Month office shifted, the office of the counsel was shifted from Old office address to New office address, and the main diary containing the entries of the cases was misplaced and could not be traced. This was also one of the reasons why the counsel could not inform the revisionist/complainant about the case.
14.That when the diary was found in the office, the counsel checked the status of the cases and immediately appointed Advocate appointed to inspect file, Advocate, to inspect the file, whereupon the counsel learnt that the matter had been dismissed in default for non-prosecution and non-appearance.
15.That the non-appearance of the counsel for the revisionist, or of the revisionist himself, on Date of non-appearance and thereafter was neither intentional nor deliberate, but was due to the reasons stated above only.
16.That upon ascertaining the status of the case, the counsel thereafter filed the present application before this Hon'ble Court.
PRAYER
(i).It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice, may kindly allow the present revision petition and set aside the order dated Date of impugned order passed by the Ld. M.M., Trial court name, in Complainant name in prayer & Accused name in prayer (Case No. Trial case number), in the interest of justice.
(ii).Any further order/orders/reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in favour of the revisionist and against the respondents, in the interest of justice, may also kindly be passed.
Date-Complainant
DelhiThrough
Counsel
(Counsel's name)
(Counsel's designation/enrolment details)
IN THE COURT OF LD. DISTRICT & SESSION COURT, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Revision Petition No. Revision petition number/Year of revision petition
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Revisionist's nameREVISIONIST
VERSUS
Respondents' namesRESPONDENTS
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, Proprietor of Deponent's firm name at Deponent's address, who does hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That the deponent is the revisionist in the above-noted case, which has been filed before this Hon'ble Court, and is conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.That the accompanying revision petition has been drafted by my counsel as per my instructions, which have been explained to me in vernacular as well, and the same are true and correct. The contents of the said revision petition may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit, and the same have not been reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION-:
Verified at Delhi on this Day of verification day of Month of verification, Year of verification, that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 2 above are true and correct, and nothing has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT