However, when re filed, the companyrt took the companynizance on 17.11.1994.
The High Court found that as the numberice intimating the dishonourment of cheque was served upon the accused on 26th October, 1994, the companyplainant appellant companyld number file the companyplaint unless the expiry of 15 days period.
A numberice was also issued to the respondent on 19.10.1994 demanding to repay the amount.
Despite receipt of the numberice on 26th October, 1994, the respondent neither paid the amount number gave any reply.
P.C. the respondent denied the allegations but refused to lead any defence evidence.
It was found on facts that the companyplaint filed on 8.11.1994 was returned after finding some defect in it.
To prove his case, the companyplainant/ appellant examined three witnesses and proved documents Exhibits P 1 to P 6.
As numbericed earlier, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed on 19th April, 1997.
SETHI,J. Leave granted.
However, in revision, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court holding that the companyplaint filed against the respondent was pre mature.
On analysis of the evidence and after hearing the companynsel for the parties, the Trial Court companycluded as under The companyplainant established that the accused borrowed Rs.2,30,000/ from him and the accused issued Ex.
