Doddaveeregowda Vs. Basavaraju

.....of notice began to run. as per the law that existed on that day, she was required to issue notice, within 15 days, which expired on 28.01.2003. on account of the inaction on the part of the complainant in not issuing notice of demand within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the information from her banker about the return of the cheque, she had lost her right to file a complaint for an offence under section 138 of the act, as there was no demand in writing made by her to the drawer of the cheque as required by law. - therefore, the complainant had no right to present a complaint. the amendment brought into force from 06.02.2003 did not give her a right to issue a notice of demand in respect of dishonoring of the cheque on 09.01.2003, which was intimated to her on 13.01.2003. therefore, the complaint lodged was defective and the learned magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged. -judgment of acquittal passed by the fast track court is justified - negotiable instruments act, 1881 (act no. 55/2002 with effect from 6-2-2003) -clause (b) of proviso to section 138 -amendment by way of substitution - statutory provision -retrospective effect - discussed. (paras 13,14,15,16,20,21,22)orderk. bhakthavatsala, j.1. the petitioner-defendant in o.s. no. 455 of 2006 on the file of civil judge (senior division) ramanagar, is before this court praying to quash order dated 15-12-2009 passed on la. no. 5 filed at annexure-j.2. the brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under:learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ex. p. 1 palupatti was marked for collateral purpose and since the signatures at ex. p. 1(c) and (d) of the present petitioner was denied the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under order 26, rule 10-a of the civil procedure code, 1908 praying the trial court to refer the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures for comparison and report and the trial court erred in allowing the application.3. the respondent has filed suit against present petitioner for declaration that the suit schedule property is allotted to his share in the oral partition in the month of november, 1992 and since then he has been enjoying the suit schedule exclusively. he has sought for alternative relief that in the event of court holding that the suit schedule property was not allotted to the share of the plaintiff in the oral partition, then to declare that he has perfected his title to the property by way of adverse possession and also sought for injunction.4. the defendant has denied the averments of the plaint and sought for dismissal of the same. in view of the pleadings the trial court framed as many as 9 issues.5. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of argument the respondent-plaintiff filed an application under order 26, rule 10-a for referring the disputed signatures for expert opinion.6. issue 1 is on the point whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule property was fallen to his share under oral partition dated 10-11-1992. in para 8 of the plaint in pursuant to it is pleaded that in pursuant to partition dated 10-11-1992 the suit schedule property was allotted to.....