It has been stated in the grounds of appeal that the order dated 17.8.2015 passed by the learned trial Court is a harsh as no effective hearing was taken place. It has been stated that the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court is not at all sustainable in the eyes of law for the simpliciter reason that the complaint in hand was fixed for defence evidence and for the last two dates, the defence evidence was not being led by the accused-respondent and even in the impugned order, it has not even been mentioned as to whether any defence witness was present on that date or not and it clearly implies that no defence was even present on the said date. It has been submitted that the complainant had been appearing before the learned trial Court mostly on each and every date of hearing. The complaint was fixed on 17.8.2015 for defence evidence of the accused. It has been mentioned that on that day the counsel for the appellant, namely, Mr. S.K. Dhir was busy in the another Court and the appellant himself was present in the Court premises, but suddenly he fell ill and left the Court premises for getting check-up from his personal doctor without informing his counsel. As the counsel was busy in another Court and was under the impression that the appellant was standing over there, as such he could not attend the trial Court and ultimately, the learned trial Court noticing the absence of the counsel for the appellant, dismissed the complaint in default vide impugned order dated 17.8.2015. Therefore, it has been prayed that the impugned order is liable to be quashed/set aside and the complaint of the appellant may be restored to its original number, in the interest of justice.
