IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.377 of 2011 JITENDRA KUMAR SINGH @ JITTU --- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. RAKHI KUMAR SINGH --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 02 28.03.2011 Although the application has been listed for consideration of limitation application (I.A. No. 718 of 2011) as the application was lodged with defect at least 06 months beyond the limitation period, this Court permitted the petitioner to make submissions on merit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the State. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed without service of valid notice. Learned trial Court in the impugned order records as under:- “In this case notice was sent through special messenger who reported that notice was given to the O.P. who went through the notice and refused to give receipt finding no alternative the process server pasted a copy of the notice on the northern gate of the house and so notice treated to be served validly and case was posted for ex-parte hearing.” If that be the case of the petitioner then the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a remedy in terms of Section 126 of the Code. Petitioner is required to invoke the said jurisdiction of the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would invoke the said jurisdiction of the trial Court. It is observed that if any such application is filed within 04 weeks from today along with 2 a copy of the present order the Court below (Principal Judge, Family Court, Aurangabad) shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit in accordance with law. The application is disposed of. Since I have considered the merit of the case the question of limitation pales into insignificance. Sym ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)