IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.388 of 2011 1. SRI BHAGWAN SAHNI . --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DURGA DEVI --- OPP. PARTIES.. ----------- 02 29.03.2011 The present matter has been listed under the heading for orders on petition for consideration of limitation application (I.A. No. 748 of 2011). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order was passed ex parte. This Court permitted the petitioner to make submissions on merit of the case. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 16.07.2009 passed in Maintenance case no. 277 of 2008 reiterated the same submission. It is the stand of the petitioner that the order was passed without valid service of notice on him. Proviso to Section 126(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’) provides a remedy to the petitioner if the petitioner is able to demonstrate that notice was not validly served on him. Accordingly, this application is disposed of by the following order:- Let petitioner approach the Court below and file an application for setting aside the order in terms of the provision of the Code within 04 weeks from today. If any such application is filed within the aforesaid time along with a copy of the present 2 order, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the Court below in accordance with law. Since I have considered the case on merit, the issue of limitation pales into insignificance. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)