From the office note it appears that notice was issued on the respondent by registered post with acknowledgement due on 4.5.90 ; the acknowledgement was not received back on 2.6;90. This Court noted the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of Order V Rule 19 A CPC the above notice sent by registered post may b declared to have been duly served. Today also from the office note dated 26. 6. 90 it appears that acknowledgement due has not been received back. In addition to the submission made on 8.6.90 Mr. Bhattacharyya has fairly drawn the attention of this Court to Rule 4 under Chapter VIII-A under the heading. Special provisions relating to procedure in election petition under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, as amended vide Act XLVII of the High Court Rules and has urged that as this Rule was introduced prior to the amendment of the CPC in 1976 this Court has to be guided by the provision contained in Rule 19 A of Order V CPC. Rule 4 under Chapter VIII A of the High Court Rules runs as follows : "4. If the postal acknowledgement has been received duly signed, by the addresses or the envelop has been returned with the endorsement 'Refused' the respondent shall be deemed to have been duly served. All other case, it shall be the duty of the petitioner to apply forthwith for service under Order V Rule 20 of the Civil Procedure Code." The proviso to sub-rule (2) of, Rule 19 A of Order V CPC runs as follows : "Provided that where the summons was properly addressed, prepaid and duly sent by registered post, acknowledgement due the declaration referred to in this sub-rule shall be made notwithstanding the fact that the acknowledgement due having been lost or mislaid, or for any other reason, has not been received by the Court within 30 days from the date of the issue of the summons." The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, inter alia, provides that every election petition shall be tried by the High Court, as nearly as may be in accordance with procedure applicable under the CPC to the trial of suits. In view of the above provision, service of notice on the respondent has to be guided by the provisions of CPC. In view of the above provision, service of notice on the respondent has to be guided by the provisions of CPC. As the above Rule 4 was framed prior to insertion of the new Rule 19-A to Order V of the CPC by the 1976 Amendment Act, this Court has to follow the amended provision contained in the CPC for service of notice. It may be mentioned that ^there is no bar in Rule 4 of the High Court Rules for declaration as contemplated under Rule 19-A of Order V, CPC when notice is issued by registered post. This being the position I find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel that the present matter has to be decided under the above Rule 19-A Order V, CPC. As the notice was sent by registered post on 4.5.90 even though the acknowledgement due has not been received, this Court can declare that the notice has been duly served on the respondent as the period of one month has expired. I, therefore, declare that the notice on respondent has been duly served and as none appears for the respondent, the case will proceed exparte. Petitioner to take steps within a month and let this matter come up after a month for further orders. In view of the above position the above Rule 4 under Chapter VIII-A of the High Court Rules may need amendment. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration. A copy of this order may be sent to the Registrar (Judl.) for necessary action.