JUDGMENT B.L. Loomba, J. - Ajit Kumar Mehrotra, Krishna Kumar Mehrotra Sons and Smt. Rani Mehrotra widow of Shri Gaya Prasad Mehrotra have filed this application seeking recall of the judgment dated 3-11-1980 passed in Writ Petition No. 3405 of 1979 and to dispose of the said writ petition after giving opportunity of hearing to the applicants. Therefore, the said judgment dated 3-11-1980 was recalled and the writ petition was allowed and the order passed by the Zila Poorti Adhikari (Rent Control), Lucknow dated 18-10-1979 Annexure 20 to the writ petition was quashed and it was directed that Opposite Party No. 1, Zila Poorti Adhikari (Rent Control), Lucknow shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observations contained in the judgment. In other words the matter was remanded to the Zila Poorti Adhikari (Rent Control) Lucknow for decision afresh. 2. Kunwar Gulab Singh, Advocate had filed the said writ petition impleading Zila Poorti Adhikari (Rent Control) Lucknow as Opposite Party No. 1 and Achal Behari Mehrotra and Gaya Prasad Mehrotra, Opposite Parties 2 and 3 respectively. A perusal of the judgment would show that the question in dispute was as to who out of the two Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and Achal Behari Mehrotra was the landlord of the premises in dispute. The proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer were under Section 16 of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 seeking release of the premises in favour of the landlord. Achal Behari Mehrotra Opposite Party No. 2 had filed counter-affidavit but no one appeared on his behalf at the time of the hearing of the writ petition Learned Standing Counsel representing Opposite Party No. 1 Rent Control and Eviction Officer had not chosen to put in appearance and contest the writ petition. In so far as Gaya Prasad Mehrotra, Opposite Party No. 3 is concerned the observation made in the said judgment was that "Gaya Prasad Mehrotra has not put in appearance in spite of service being deemed sufficient under the Rules of the Court. In the present C.M. application filed by the heirs of late Gaya Prasad Mehrotra it has been alleged that the petitioner (Kr. In the present C.M. application filed by the heirs of late Gaya Prasad Mehrotra it has been alleged that the petitioner (Kr. Gulab Singh) in order to grab the property in collusion with Opposite Party No. 2, Achal Behari Mehrotra manoeuvered the allotment in his favour and in the absence of late Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and the present applicants forcibly occupied the premises. As would become clear from the Civil Misc. Application, following grounds of challenge have been raised to challenge the impugned judgment and on that basis to seek the recall thereof :- (1) That no notice of the writ petition was ever served on Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and that the petitioner played fraud upon this Court and manoeuvered to have the writ petition decided without affording opportunity to Gaya Prasad Mehrotra to contest the writ petition. (2) That Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and after in his death the present applicants had been contesting the case from the very beginning but they were misled by the following observations contained in the judgment "Only Opposite Party No. 2 Shri Achal Behari has filed a counter-affidavit in which he reiterated that he was the owner landlord of the premises and that Shri Gaya Prasad Mehrotra had nothing to do with the premises. Gaya Prasad Mehrotra had not put in appearance in spite of service being deemed sufficient under the Rules of the Court. On behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1. The Rent Control and Eviction Officer, the learned Standing Counsel has not chosen to put in appearance." (3) That the correct factual position came to the knowledge of the applicants Counsel when the file of the case was summoned by this Hon'ble Court during the course of hearing in Writ Petition No. 2258 of 1982 Mr. Gulab Singh v. IInd Additional District Judge and others, on 11-10-1985. (4) That the applicant did not move application seeking recall of the judgment dated 3-11-1980 earlier for the reason that late Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and thereafter the applicants were misled by the observation quoted in the ground mentioned at No. 2 above (see Paragraph 13 read with Paragraph 7 of the Civil Misc. Application). 3. Kr. Gulab Singh, petitioner in writ petition has contested this Civil Misc. Application and has filed counter-affidavit dated 18-10-1986. Application). 3. Kr. Gulab Singh, petitioner in writ petition has contested this Civil Misc. Application and has filed counter-affidavit dated 18-10-1986. Main points raised and alleged in the counter-affidavit may broadly be mentioned below :- (a) That Gaya Prasad Mehrotra was alive when the writ petition was decided on 3-11-1980 and that he was sufficiently served and the service of the notice of the writ petition on him was considered by this Court sufficient. (b) That Gaya Prasad had full knowledge of the pendency of the (Writ Petition No. 3405 of 1979) and was fully alive to the proceedings therein. (c) That Gaya Prasad Mehrotra participated in the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after the remand of the case under judgment dated 3-11-1980. The application for release of the accommodation was dismissed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer by order dated 13-2-1981 and the accommodation in question was allotted in favour of the deponent (Kr. Gulab Singh) by order dated 13-2-1981, Gaya Prasad Mehrotra applied for the review of the order dated 13-2-1981 by application moved on 14-3-1981. The review application was rejected on 4-11-1981. Gaya Prasad Mehrotra, thus, participated in the proceedings after the remand of the case under judgment dated 3-11-1980 and never challenged the judgment dated 3-11-1980 in his life-time. (d) That the present Civil Misc. Application has been moved after about 5 years without any valid explanation for delay and the Civil Misc. Application has been moved with ulterior motive to have the disposal of the W.P. No. 2258 of 1982 (filed by the deponent Kr. Gulab Singh) filed against the present applicants of Civil Misc. Application and others. It has been alleged that the judgment in Writ Petition No. 2258 of 1982 was being dictated when the learned Counsel for Ajit Kumar Mehrotra (applicant of the Civil Misc. Application) prayed that the judgment may not be dictated since they were going to move an application seeking recall of the judgment dated 3-11-1980 and as a result disposal of Writ Petition No. 2268 of 1982 has been deferred pending disposal of the present Civil Misc. Application. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants Ajit Kumar Mehrotra and others and opposite party Kr. Gulab Singh and for the reasons given below we are of the view that this Civil Misc. Application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Application. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants Ajit Kumar Mehrotra and others and opposite party Kr. Gulab Singh and for the reasons given below we are of the view that this Civil Misc. Application lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 5. The main ground of challenge in support of the Civil Misc. Application is that the notice of the writ petition was not served on Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and the service upon Gaya Prasad Mehrotra was wrongly deemed by the Court to be sufficient and as such the writ petition has been decided without affording any opportunity to contest the Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. On behalf of the applicants it has been stated before us that Gaya Prasad Mehrotra died on 27-10-1981 as such he was alive on 3-11-1980 when the judgment in question was passed. We have perused the record of the writ petition in question 3405 of 1979. The writ petition was filed on 22-11-1970 and on 18-12-1979 the following order was passed by Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Misra and Verma, JJ. "Admit. Issue notice." On behalf of Achal Behari Mehrotra appearance was put in on 20-12-1979 by Shri K.N. Srivastava and Sri D.S. Verma Advocates vide Vakalatnama dated 20-12-1979. Counter-affidavit was filed by Achal Behari Mehrotra on 14-4-1980. The order sheet contains office report dated 28-3-1980 mentioning that 5-5-1980 is fixed for attendance of standing Counsel for Opposite Party No. 1 and service through registered post on Opposite Party No. 3 only. On 14-4-1980 an expedite application was moved by petitioner Kr. Gulab Singh and the order passed was that it be listed before the Hon'ble Judge Incharge. There is an order dated 2-9-1980 "Expedite." In between there were some dates fixed for orders on the expedite application. On 10-10-1980 order was passed for listing the writ petition for hearing and that is how it appears to have been listed on 24-10-1980 and thereafter on 3-11-1980 when the matter was heard and judgment delivered. 6. It appears that notice was issued under Chapter XII of the Rules of the Court to Gaya Prasad Mehrotra with the address as 38-A Darul Shafa, Lucknow. "Copy of this notice on record is paper B-6/1 dated 28-3-1980 there upon the postal receipt hearing the date 1-4-1980 is affixed showing that the registered letter was addressed and sent to Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. "Copy of this notice on record is paper B-6/1 dated 28-3-1980 there upon the postal receipt hearing the date 1-4-1980 is affixed showing that the registered letter was addressed and sent to Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. The crucial point is whether the notice sent through registered post was rightly deemed to have been served on Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. The record of the writ petition does not contain any office report about the sufficiency of the service though the judgment contains observations that "the service being deemed sufficient under the Rules of the Court." Paper No. B-6/1 and the postal receipt dated 1-3-1980 is sufficient proof of the fact that the notice through registered post was issued to Shri Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. One of the modes of affecting service undisputably is the service through registered post. Rule 10 contained in Chapter XII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 provides that the provisions of Order V of the Code (Code of Civil Procedure) shall apply to the service in all proceedings in this Court. Rule 19-A of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for service through registered post as a mode in addition to personal service and according to sub-rule (2) when the acknowledge cent signed by the defendant or his agent is received by the Court or the, postal cover containing the summons is received back with the endorsement by a postal employee that the defendant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the cover, the Court issuing the summons shall declare that the summons had been duly served on the defendant. According to the proviso to the sub-rule "where the summons was properly addressed and duly sent by registered posts acknowledgement due, the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding that the acknowledgement having been misled, or for any other reason has not been received by the Court, within 30 days from the date of the issue of the summons. 7. Accordingly, the power to declare the service to be sufficient vests in the Court and in a case where the notice is sent through registered post and the acknowledgement is not received within 30 days from the issue of the notice, the notice can be declared to have been duly served. Presumption of correctness of due procedure being attached. 7. Accordingly, the power to declare the service to be sufficient vests in the Court and in a case where the notice is sent through registered post and the acknowledgement is not received within 30 days from the issue of the notice, the notice can be declared to have been duly served. Presumption of correctness of due procedure being attached. The notice shall be taken to have been sent under the registered cover properly addressed and there being nothing on record that the registered cover had been received back it would be taken to have been served on the addressee, namely, Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. 8. The presumption that the registered cover containing a notice was duly served en Gaya Prasad Mehrotra is justifiably fortified by the fact that Gaya Prasad Mehrotra having acquired-knowledge of the pendency of the writ petition and its disposal by judgment dated 3-11-1980 did not come forward during has life-time to seek the recall of the judgment. Admittedly, he died on 27-10-1981 and had as such, sufficient opportunity and time to come forward and seek the recall of the judgement on the ground that he had not been served and desired to contest the writ petition. The learned counsel for the applicants could not dispute that after the judgment of remand dated 3-11-1980 Gaya Prasad Mehrotra participated in the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer. Even though rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant Ajit Kumar Mehrotra to the counter affidavit of Kr. Gulab Singh. The substance of the factual allegations about the knowledge of the writ petition and the judgment to Gaya Prasad and the present applicants have gone uncontroverted. Application for release of the accommodation of Gaya Prasad Mehrotra was dismissed on 13-2-1981 and the accommodation was allotted in favour of Kr. Gulab Singh. Gaya Prasad Mehrotra applied for review of this order on 4-3-1981. He filed rejoinder affidavit on 13-4-1981 and his review, application was dismissed on 4-11-1981. The clearly establishes that Gaya Prasad Mehrotra had full knowledge of the writ petition in question as also of the judgment dated 3-11-1980 and the fact that he did not come forward to seek the recall of the order is sufficient corroborative proof that the notice of the with petition was duly served on him. 9. The clearly establishes that Gaya Prasad Mehrotra had full knowledge of the writ petition in question as also of the judgment dated 3-11-1980 and the fact that he did not come forward to seek the recall of the order is sufficient corroborative proof that the notice of the with petition was duly served on him. 9. Yet another aspect ; Assuming that the notice issued under a receipt dated 1-4-1980 was not served on Gaya Prasad Mehrotra, the factum of the filing on the writ petition and the judgment in question came to his knowledge when the proceedings started before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer after the remand and Gaya Prasad Mehrotra participated in the proceedings. The non-service became immaterial in so far as his right to seek the recall of the judgment on the ground of non-service of the notice. 10. Thirdly, Gaya Prasad Mehrotra submitted to the judgment in question and participated in the proceedings before the Rent Control and, Eviction Officer, After his death the present applicants also participated in the proceedings before the Rent Control and Eviction Officer including the proceedings in the appeal before the Additional District Judge. Having submitted to, the judgement in question and participated in the release and allotment proceedings subsequent to the remand judgment, it was not open to Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and thereafter to the present applicants to turn round and question the, judgment and seek its recall on the ground of non-service of the notice of Gaya Prasad Mehrotra. 11. Fourthly, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and thereafter to the present applicants The rights of the parties had not been decided under the judgment in question, it was merely a order of remand and Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and the present applicants fully participate in the proceedings after this judgment or remand. On this ground also no case is made out providing justification for recall of the judgment. 12. Lastly the present Civil Misc. Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. It is abundantly clear and also undisputed that Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and after his death the present applicants had full knowledge of the judgment in question and no worth-while reason has been set out to explain this long delay in submitting this application. 13. Application is liable to be dismissed on the ground of unexplained inordinate delay. It is abundantly clear and also undisputed that Gaya Prasad Mehrotra and after his death the present applicants had full knowledge of the judgment in question and no worth-while reason has been set out to explain this long delay in submitting this application. 13. For the foregoing reasons this application is devoid of merit and is Application dismissed.