and for some time he was deputed to Kankadahada tahasil. The impugned order discloses that notices was issued in his official address at Babandha under Hindol tahasil as mentioned in the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Initially, the notice returned unserved. However, on the second occasion, said notice alleged to have returned with a remark ‘Refused’. It is his submission that at the relevant time the Petitioner was serving under Hindol tahasil and for some time he was deputed to Kankadahada tahasil. He came to know about the proceeding only when he received notice in the execution case in Criminal Proceeding No.49 of 2021 and has filed an application under Section 126 (2) Cr.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte order. He further submits that learned Judge, Family Court, Rourkela did not make any endeavour to verify the order sheet. The Petitioner was also not given opportunity to put forth his case. In support of his contention, the Petitioner filed his posting orders as well as the extracts of his service book (Annexure-3 series) to show that he was not at Babandha under Hindol tahasil at the relevant period, in which address notices were issued. He, therefore, prays for setting aside the impugned order and to consider his application under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. afresh in accordance with law giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
