IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.365 of 2011 MD. MOINUL HAQUE SON OF IBRAHIM, R/O- VILLAGE RAJ BAINAILI, P.S.- KASBA AND DISTRICT- PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIBI HALIMA D/O- ABDUL WAHAB, R/O- VILLAGE KAIMI, P.S.- KASBA AND DISTRICT- PURNIA. 3. MD. SHAKOOR, S/O- MD. MOINUL HAQUE (MINOR) R/O- VILLAGE RAJ BAINAILI, P.S.- KASBA AND DISTRICT- PURNEA AT PRESENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAIMI, P.S.- KASBA AND DISTRICT- PURNEA. ----------- 2 23.03.2011 I.A. NO. 687 of 2011 Although the present application was listed under the heading “Orders on Petitions” for consideration of application seeking condonation of delay, I permitted the petitioner to make submissions on merit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is submitted that the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by learned Principal Judge, Purnea in Maintenance Case No. 57 of 2008 was passed ex-parte. Paragraph 3 of the impugned order reads as under: “After issuance and service of notice, the O.P. did not appear to contest the case nor filed any show-cause, hence, the case was heard exparte against the O.P.” If the stand of the petitioner is that notice was not validly served on him then the course open to him would be to approach the said Court for setting aside the order on the said grounds in terms of provisions contained under Section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 This Court, in view of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, observes that the petitioner should approach the said Court in terms of the aforesaid provision within four weeks from today along with a copy of the present order. If such an application is filed in the manner stated above, learned Principal Judge, Purnea shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. With this observation, the application stands disposed of. Since I have considered the application on merit, the question of limitation pales into insignificance. pkj ( Kishore K. Mandal, J)