Pre-summoning complaint restoration and delay condonation upheld where no perversity was shown in revision.

Restoration of a complaint dismissed at the pre-summoning stage for non-appearance was treated as a procedural matter that did not decide the merits or cause prejudice to the opposite side. The revisional court's acceptance of the explanation for delay in filing the revision petition, along with the imposition of costs and conditions, was found to be a proper exercise of discretion. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act supported continuation of the complaint for consideration on merits, and no perversity was shown to justify interference in inherent jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order restoring the complaint and condoning the delay in filing the revision petition called for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complaint had been dismissed at the pre-summoning stage for non-appearance, and the revisional court restored it while imposing costs and conditions. Restoration of a complaint dismissed in default at this stage does not determine the merits of the case and does not cause prejudice to the opposite side. The explanation for delay was accepted by the revisional court, and the High Court found no perversity in that discretion warranting interference. The underlying dispute also involved a cheque dishonour prosecution, where the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act supported continuation of the complaint for consideration on merits.

Conclusion: Interference was declined and the challenge to the restoration order was rejected.

---