p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1983 of 2024 Subudhi Venkat Rao …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- K. Narasimha Raju @ S.V. Rao …. Opp. Party CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 18.05.2026 02. 1. The petitioner is the complainant in the 138 N.I. Act case initiated by him against the opposite party. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in 1CC Case No.15 of 2022, whereby his application under Section 143-A (1)(b) of N.I. Act has been turned down. 3. This Court issued notice to the opposite party vide order dated 28.06.2024. Though the service of notice is sufficient, but none has entered appearance on behalf of the opposite party. 4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meantime, the trial Court referred the matter to mediation twice and the present matter was listed before the 2nd National Lok Adalat also and in all the occasions, opposite party has not appeared and not cooperate with the proceeding. p. 2 5. Mr. Mishra has drawn my attention to the impugned order submits that the prime ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner under section 143(A) of N.I. Act is that the same was filed on 17.06.2022 i.e. much prior to the appearance of the accused and framing of notice, that was not at the stage to claim the interim compensation. In nut a shell, the rejection of the application is on the ground that the same was moved prematurely. 6. Mr. Mishra further draw the attention of this Court that the trial Court essentially has recorded a wrong date i.e. 17.06.2022, in fact the present petitioner had moved the application under section 143 N.I. Act on 21.06.2023. He further submits that the trial has already proceeded and the complainant has already been examined as witnesses and the opposite party-accused has moved application for recalling of some witnesses only with an object to delay the trial. By relying upon the provision of Section 143(3) of N.I. Act, Mr. Mishra submits that though there is the statute mandate to the trial Courts to dispose of the complaint case of the present nature within a period of six months, still the accused has been dragging the case unnecessarily since last 4 years. 7. In view of the same, he fairly submits that the impugned order may be set aside and liberty may be granted to the petitioner to file an application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act afresh. The submission made by Mr. Mishra deserves merit. 8. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the impugned p. 3 order dated 15.11.2023 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in 1CC Case No.15 of 2022 is set aside with liberty to the petitioner to move application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act afresh, if so advised. If such application is moved, the learned trial Court shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit within at earliest. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Rabi Designation: Personal Assistant