E-Vision Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. ...

E-Vision Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Its Auth. Signatory Vivek Singh

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and another

.....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)

:

Ramakar Shukla

Counsel for Opposite Party(s)

:

G.A.

Court No. - 15

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking setting aside the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Additional Court, Court No.11, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.123748 of 2023, E-Vision Infratech Private Limited Vs. V.S.P.L. Company Limited, under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Indira Nagar, District Lucknow.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.2 is dispensed with.

3. Sri Ramakar Shukla, counsel for the applicants submits that applicant had filed a complaint on 08.11.2023 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and though the same was registered as Complaint Case No.123748 of 2023, but summons were not issued. He further submits that from 08.11.2023 to 17.12.2024 either the applicant or his counsel was present in the court, but later on under the administrative order of the District Judge, Lucknow, the file was transferred to the Additional Court, N.I. Act and the said information was not within the knowledge of the applicant or his counsel, as such on 18.09.2025 and on 12.02.2026 neither the applicant nor his counsel could appear before the trial court and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.02.2026. It is submitted that applicant is the complainant and he should be given one chance to prosecute the case, otherwise he will suffer irreparable financial loss. It is further submitted that applicant will cooperate in the trial and will not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

4. Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA-I, on the other hand, has submitted that the order sheet indicates that applicant and his counsel had not appeared before the trial court for many times, that is why the case was dismissed for non-prosecution, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in it.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After going through the record, it appears that though the case was registered, but summons were not issued. The ground taken by the applicant that he and his counsel had no knowledge regarding the proceedings of the case as it was transferred from one court to another court, therefore, neither he nor his counsel could appear on the date when the case was dismissed for want of prosecution, seems to be reasonable. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that some lenient view be taken and the applicant should be given an opportunity to prosecute his case before the trial court.

7. Application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the Additional Court, Court No.11, Lucknow in Complaint Case No.123748 of 2023, E-Vision Infratech Private Limited Vs. V.S.P.L. Company Limited, is hereby set aside. The case is restored to its original number. Applicant is directed to appear before the trial court within ten days from today and thereafter the trial court will proceed with the case expeditiously in accordance with law without giving any unnecessary adjournment to both the parties.

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

May 6, 2026

Rao/-