IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.1795 of 2010 MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAMAVTAR PRASAD VERMA …PETITIONER Versus 1. SMT. ANITA KUMARI , WIFE OF MANOJ KUMAR 2. ADITYA KUMAR, SON OF MANOJ KUMAR 3. TANYA, DAUGHTER OF MANOJ KUMAR …OPPOSITE PARTIES For the petitioner :Mr.Birju Prasad For o.ps. :Mr.Brajesh Sahay ----------- 02. 02.05.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. While assailing the order, it is submitted that the same has been passed without valid service of notice. Learned court below has recorded as under in the order impugned:- “After due service of summons opposite party did not appear in this case and case was heard ex-parte. It is further contended that from the endorsement on the order sheet it would appear that notice was issued on 6.10.2010, whereas the order impugned was passed in haste on 29.9.2010. If that be so, then the Code itself provides a remedy in terms of proviso to section 126 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Let the petitioner approach the court and pray for recall/setting aside the order impugned. If any such application is filed within three weeks from today, the court below shall consider and dispose of the said application in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced certified 2 copy of the order dated 20.11.2010 to show that distress warrant has been issued. The court below shall not take any coercive step against the petitioner for a period of six weeks from today. The application stands disposed of. Let this order be communicated by fax, the cost of which, shall be deposited by the petitioner. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )