Jitendra Chauhan, J. - (1.) The present revision has been filed against the order dated 12.8.2011, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, whereby the revision filed by the respondent was allowed.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that petitioners being the dealer of the respondent, purchased the tractors from respondent and towards the payment of the aforesaid tractors, the petitioner company issued a cheque No.0628701, dated 20.12.2000, which allegedly bounced. Despite the legal notice, the petitioners failed to make the payment. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 20.2.2012, due to non-appearance of the parties. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision which was allowed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned revisional court has committed a grave error while allowing the revision. The petitioners were wrongly proceeded against ex-parte by the learned revisional Court. The notices were not received by the petitioners. The company had already been closed in the year 2000.;