- (1.) Notice upon respondent no. 6 has already been served. So far as respondent no. 7 is concerned, the office report is that respondent no. 7 refused to accept the notice. In view of above, it is deemed that notice upon respondent no. 7 is accepted as valid. It is relevant to mention here that this Court ordered for service of not only application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act but also for the memo of appeal, which also has been served.
(2.) Nobody appeared on behalf of private parties.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State on application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act being I.A. No. 897 of 2013.;