The main Topic named Remedy for a case u/s 138 N. I. Act. - dismissed for default available at the URL
the following is a letter that I have intended to submit to my advocate. Does it make any sense? Please advice.
Complaint C-713 / 2006 filed by the complainant on 03.08.2006 under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. 1881 and the complaint was dismissed for default on dated 16.08.2013. Meanwhile, 7 years elapsed.
Now, I am about 49 year old semi-self employed businessperson, maintenance of my livelihood depends on my income from my business. Moreover, adequate money is required to run the business.
However, a considerable portion of said money stuck with the accused due to his default in payments. As such, I have filed the instant complaint C-713/2006 on 03.08.2006 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 1881 with my understanding that since the Act provides speedy remedy and swift trial to the complainants in respect of cheque bouncing cases; I have expected to be able to rearrange my business as soon as a speedy remedy given to me under the said Act.
Meanwhile seven (7) years elapsed from the date I have filed said complaint, since then my business income has been reduced to dust, day-by-day, as such I have to find additional opportunity to increase my income that compelled me to go to another State of India, very distant from West Bengal.
An income opportunity made me to go to
24.11.2012 - Before this date, I went to said
, Jamnagar Gujarat, I have requested a clerk concerned to take necessary step on behalf of me and to co-operate concerned advocate engaged for the case. Earlier this date, I have telephoned said clerk but it appears to me that the said clerk forgot to take step on this date on behalf of me for the Complaint C-713/06.
12.03.2013 - I was in
too on this date. Recently I came to know that it was a date, for my appearance, and to take necessary step against Complaint C-713/06 before the Jamnagar Ld. Court. Neither I was aware of this date nor could I follow up the case in person since I was in a distant state on this date and obviously, on this date too the said clerk forgot to take step on behalf of me for the Complaint C-713/06. Continuity has broken since last date.
- 16.08.20013 – This date, the case dismissed for default. None of the above said dates, i.e. 24.11.2012 and 12.03.2013 the complainant’s side has attended the Complaint C-713/2006. Therefore, there was a temporary discontinuation from said Complaint C-713/2006 during the above said period and this date.
The complainant has maintained significant attendances on the relevant court dates, even then, it was practically impossible for him to appear in person before the
Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, the Complaint C-713/06 deserved to restore because the complainant was unaware about the date 16.08.20013 when the same dismissed for default ordered. Besides that, due to his financial constraint and maintain his livelihood, the complainant had to go to another state during said period and these are the other grounds to restore same complaint.
In support of his above statements, the complainant has attached copies of the following documents with this letter:
1. Authorization letter Dated 4 November 2012 - That represents complainant's movement in another state during concerned period.
2. Notarized Tenancy Agreements dated 23.11.2012 - Same Comment as the above.
3. Extended Tenancy, Letter dated 10.01.2013 acknowledged by his landlord. - Same Comment as the first one.
4. Six months Rent receipts issued by his landlord between the period 10.01.2013 and 09.07.2013 - Same Comment as the first one.
- Complainant in the case C-713 / 2006.