Appeals allowed, order set aside under Section 138 of NI Act. Emphasis on hearing cases on merit.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the order of dismissal for non-appearance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of hearing and deciding the cases on merit rather than dismissing them for non-appearance. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in the legal proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
- Petitioner seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 due to non-appearance.
- Non-appearance of petitioner before the trial court leading to dismissal of complaints.
- Petitioner's contention of non-deliberate and non-intentional non-appearance.
- Opposition by respondents to the appeal petitions.
- Court's consideration of non-deliberate non-appearance as a fit case for grant of leave.
- Appeals preferred against the order of dismissal for non-appearance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
- Appellant's submission of misunderstanding regarding the adjourned dates for complaints.
- Appellant's argument of wrong noting of dates leading to non-appearance.
- Appellant's claim of prejudice if respondents are let free.
- Support for the appeals with affidavits and plea for setting aside the impugned order.
- Opposition by respondents to the appeals.
- Court's finding of non-deliberate non-appearance due to wrong noting of dates.
- Court's decision in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned order and restore complaints.
- Direction for parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought leave to file appeals against the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to non-appearance resulting in the dismissal of complaints. The trial court had observed that the petitioner's non-appearance indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The petitioner contended that the non-appearance was neither deliberate nor intentional, urging the court to consider the petitions in the interest of justice. The respondents opposed the appeals, arguing that the impugned order was not flawed and should stand. After hearing both parties, the court found that the petitioner's non-appearance was not deliberate but due to a misunderstanding of dates, leading to the grant of leave for the appeals.

The appeals were lodged against the order of dismissal for non-appearance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant explained that confusion regarding adjourned dates caused the non-appearance and claimed ignorance of the specific date resulting in the dismissal of five complaints. The appellant emphasized that the non-appearance was unintentional and supported the appeals with affidavits, alleging prejudice if the respondents were not held accountable. The respondents opposed the appeals, asserting the legality of the impugned order. The court, considering the non-deliberate non-appearance due to an error in noting dates, decided in favor of setting aside the impugned order and restoring the complaints.

In conclusion, the court allowed the appeals, setting aside the order of dismissal for non-appearance under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court directed the parties to appear before the trial court for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of hearing and deciding the cases on merit rather than dismissing them for non-appearance. The judgment aimed to uphold the principles of justice and fairness in the legal proceedings.

---