RAKESH TIWARI, J. This recall application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith Application No. 110206/07 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for condonation of delay. Recall application for recall of the judgment and order dated 20-12-2006 supported by an affidavit and Civil Misc. Stay Application under Section 151 C. P. C. aforesaid for keeping the judgment dated 20-12- 2006 in abeyance during the pendency of the recall application has also been filed. 2. The recall application alongwith affidavit has been filed with following prayer : "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 20-11-2006 passed by Honble Mr. Sanjay Misra, J. and/or grant such other and further relief which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicants/respondents shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. " 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid applications it is averred that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27-10-2005 passed in S. C. C. Revision No. 21 of 2004; that it appears from the order sheet that Court by order dated 2-2-2006 had issued notices which were in fact issued on 10-2-2006 by RPAD fixing 20-3-2006 but in fact no notice has been served on the applicant-respondents at any point of time; that it further appears that undelivered cover had been returned back and that on 14-9-2006 granting time to the petitioner to take fresh steps for service of notice upon respondent Nos. 1 and 5; that on 9-10-2006, notices were issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 13-11-2006. The Office vide report dated 10-11-2006 reported that undelivered covers in respect of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had returned back with remark of the Post Office. 4. As regards opposite party Nos. 1 and 5, the office reported that neither acknowledgment nor undelivered covers have been received back after service as yet and no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 5. 5. It is further averred that on 20-11-2006 Honble Sanjay Misra, J. pleased passed an order to the effect that in view of the office report dated 10-11-2006 notices on the respondent Nos. 1 and 5. 5. It is further averred that on 20-11-2006 Honble Sanjay Misra, J. pleased passed an order to the effect that in view of the office report dated 10-11-2006 notices on the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court and office will proceed accordingly; that on 13-12- 2006 this Court passed the order to the effect that service of notices has already been deemed to be sufficient and as no counter- affidavit has been filed, therefore, direction was issued to list the case in the next cause list for admission/hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was also directed to give his case laws on the next date. Thereafter, the case was listed on 20-12-2006 when it has been allowed by quashing the order and judgment dated 27-10-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor in S. C. C. Revision No. 21 of 2004. 6. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the postman neither came to serve summons upon them nor made any enquiry or information from the respondents hence it appears that the petitioner has managed the endorsement of the postman in collusion with him; that at no point of time, the notice had been served upon the respondent, as such, the order dated 20-11-2006 deeming the service to be sufficient on respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is neither in accordance with law nor in accordance with Rules of the Court and there is no order for sufficiency of service of order of notice on respondent No. 5 in so far as he is covered by order dated 20-12-2006, the Court allowed the writ petition quashing the judgment and order dated 27-10-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor in S. S. C. Revision No. 21 of 2004. 7. The petitioner then submitted that Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules provides for service of notice by post or publication and has vehemently urged that as it is clear from the order sheet that notices were not served upon the respondents by post and that as no notice has been either directed to be published or was ever published, there cannot be any service deemed on the respondents as undelivered cover has been received back. 8. 8. For ready reference Chapter VIII Rule 12 and Chapter XII Rule 10 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 are quoted below : "chapter VIII Rule 12 Service of notice by post or publication : Any notice may in lieu of or in addition to any other mode of service provided by law or by these Rules be served if so ordered by sending it by registered post addressed to the person upon whom it is to be served or by publishing it in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain : Provided that where an order for publication of notice has been passed by the Court or by the Registrar, as the case may be, the party on whose behalf the notice is to be published shall, within seven days from the date of the order, obtain the tentative date from the office on the prescribed form of the notice duly filled in by the party or his Counsel and shall get it published before the date fixed in a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the respondent or the opposite party, as the case may be is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain : Provided further that the party or his Counsel getting the notice published as aforesaid shall so arrange that the notice is published at least ten days before the date fixed in the notice and shall file a copy of the newspaper containing the notice before the Registrar a week before the date fixed : Provided also that where the copy of the newspaper is not supplied within the time prescribed in the preceding proviso, the case or the application, as the case may be, on which the order for publication of notice had been passed, shall be listed before the Court for such orders as the Court deems fit. [explanation I.- Where the party fails to file the copy of the newspaper he shall be deemed to have committed default in supplying the notice, and the provisions of Rule 4 Chapter XII shall mutates mutandis apply in such cases. [explanation I.- Where the party fails to file the copy of the newspaper he shall be deemed to have committed default in supplying the notice, and the provisions of Rule 4 Chapter XII shall mutates mutandis apply in such cases. Explanation II.- A notice sent by registered post shall unless it is received back from the post office as undelivered, be deemed to have been served at the time at which it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. " 9. He then stated that in view of explanation (II) of Rule 12 of Chapter VIIIth is not attracted in the case. 10. He further relying upon Chapter XII Rule 10 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, with respect to service of notices which is as under : Chapter XII Rule 10 Service of notice : The provisions of Order V of the Code shall apply to the service of notice in all proceedings in this Court : Provided that : (a) Where a party is represented by an Advocate notice of any proceeding in the case shall unless order otherwise be served on such Advocate; (b) Notice to a person residing in a Presidency town or notice of an interlocutory application may be sent by registered post; (c) Where the Registrar or the Court directs that a notice be served in a particular manner it shall be served in such manner. " 11. He then relied upon the provisions of Order V of Code of Civil Procedure and submitted that Rule 9 of Order V has been amended with effect from 1-7-2000, providing that even in view of the endorsement purporting to have been made by postal employee to the effect that defendant or his agent has refused to take delivery of the postal article containing the summons, it shall be deemed to be duly served upon the defendant and further if the acknowledgment due has not been returned back within the 30 days from the date of summons, in that circumstances too the summons would deemed to have been served. 12. It is urged that in so far as the position of the present case is concerned it is neither a case of the refusal of service of summons by the respondents nor of return back of the acknowledgment due within 30 days. 12. It is urged that in so far as the position of the present case is concerned it is neither a case of the refusal of service of summons by the respondents nor of return back of the acknowledgment due within 30 days. It is stated that it is rather a case where there is a specific endorsement of the postal employee of non-delivery of summons, as such, the service cannot be deemed to be sufficient on the respondents. He further urged that the provisions of Order V, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedural provides that in case where the defendant or his agent refused to sign acknowledgment or, where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence cannot find the defendant, he shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides, but there is no endorsement of the postal employee that he had affixed a copy of summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house. 13. He then went on to say that it appears that provisions of Order V, Rule 17 is not attracted where the summons have been sent by Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due. 14. He next urged that Order V, Rule 20 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure with regard to the substituted service has not been complied with which provides that where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of the avoiding service or that for any other reasons and the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court house and also upon in some conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain in such other manner as the Court thinks it. 15. 15. He lastly contends that from perusal of the order sheet, it is crystal clear that there is no order of substituted service or publication in the newspaper nor there is compliance of the provisions of Order V, Rule 20 at all, as such, in view of the fact and circumstances of the case, the order dated 20-11-2006 cannot be said either to be in accordance with the rules of the Court nor in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, the order dated 20-11-2006 deserves to be recalled by this Court and the writ petition is liable to be decided after exchange of the affidavits and after hearing the parties on merits. 16. It is clear from the remarks on the registered covers that the notices were sent to the right address but the respondents not only avoided the delivery, they also did not collect the same from the postman at the post office even in spite of information in this regard. Thus, it cannot be said that the notices were not served upon the petitioner. 17. Considered the submissions of Sri K. M. Garg, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 who has filed recall application has alongwith the delay condonation application No. 110206/07 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 C. P. C. for condonation of delay in filing the recall application. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 nor any application on behalf of respondent No. 3 has been filed for recall of the judgment and order dated 20-11-2006. 18. It appears from the record that the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 has only given fleeting glimpses of the order sheet which do not reflect the correct state of facts. In order to appreciate the arguments of the Counsel it is necessary that complete order sheet be reproduced referred. It is as under : "order SHEEt 2-2-2006 Issue notice to respondents returnable at an early date. (BOC) 10-2-2006 Notice was issued to O. P. Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 20-3-2006. 13-9-2006 Office Report : Notice issued to Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 20-3-2006. Office copies are placed on record. Undelivered covers returned with post office remarks : O. P. Nos. 1 to 5 Baad Samay Ke Vapas". (BOC) 10-2-2006 Notice was issued to O. P. Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 20-3-2006. 13-9-2006 Office Report : Notice issued to Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 20-3-2006. Office copies are placed on record. Undelivered covers returned with post office remarks : O. P. Nos. 1 to 5 Baad Samay Ke Vapas". All undelivered covers are placed on record with the reports the case is put up for admission 14-9-2006 Honble Sanjay Misra, J. Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to take fresh steps for service of notice on the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 9-10-2006 Notice issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 13-11-2006. 28-10-2006 Office report Notice issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 13-11-2006. Office copies are placed on record. Neither undelivered covers nor A/d returned back after service as yet. The report is submitted before Honble Court for admission. 28-10-2006 Honble Rakesh Tiwari, j List on the date fixed. 10-11-2006 Office Report Notice issued to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 13-11- 2006 are as under : P. P. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 Undelivered covers have received back after services with post office remark "praptkarta KE PAS BAR BAR JANE VA SUCHANA DENE PAR BHI NAHIN MILE ATHAH PRESHAK KO VAPAS" and it placed on record. No one has put in appearance en behalf of respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 as yet. O. P. Nos. 1 and 5 Neither acknowledgment nor undelivered covers have been received back after service as yet. No one has put in appearance on behalf o P. P. Nos. 1 and 5 as yet. The O/c of the notices alongwith postal receipt are placed on record. The case is put up before Honble Court for admission. 13-11-2006 Honble Sanjay Misra, J. Since the notice sent to the respondents has fixed today i. e. 13-11-2006 as the date for appearance. Let this matter be come up in the next cause list. 20-11-2006 Honble Sanjay Misra, J. In view of the office report dated 10-11-2006 notices on the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court. Office will proceed accordingly. 12-12-2006 Office Report 0 In compliance of the Honble Court order dated 6-12-2006 in Civil Misc. 20-11-2006 Honble Sanjay Misra, J. In view of the office report dated 10-11-2006 notices on the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court. Office will proceed accordingly. 12-12-2006 Office Report 0 In compliance of the Honble Court order dated 6-12-2006 in Civil Misc. Listing Application No. 260526/06 dated 4-12-2006 has been filed and it placed on record. 13-12-2006 Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J. Service of notice has already been deemed sufficient. No counter- affidavit has been filed. List this case in the next cause list for admission/hearing. Counsel for the petitioner may give his case laws on the next date. 20-12-2006 Honble Rakesh Tiwari, J. Writ Petition is allowed. Jt. on the separate sheet (six ). Jt. is approved for reporting. " 19. It is noticed from the office report dated 13-9-2006 that notices were issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and undelivered covers were returned back with the post office remarks "baad Samay Ke Vapas". This remark of the post office shows that the Registered Notice with Acknowledgment Due were sent but as they were not claimed, they were kept for sometime by the postman for being claimed by the respondents and after expiry of the period and were returned with the aforesaid remark. 20. In the aforesaid circumstances, it appears that His Lordship Sanjay Misra, J. as abundant caution again granted two weeks time to the petitioner for taking fresh steps for service of notice on respondent Nos. 1 to 5 to ensure service upon them, though it was not required in view of the undelivered notices returned with remark of the post office "baad Samay Ke Vapas". 1 21. Notices were again issued on 9-10-2006 fixing 13-11-2006 on which the office reported that neither undelivered covers nor A/d returned back after service. 22. It appears that case was wrongly listed on 28-11-2006 when it was directed by this Court for listing on the date fixed. The case was then listed with office report dated 10-11-2005 to the effect that after service on opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, undelivered covers had been received back with post office remark "praptkarta KE PAS BAR BAR JANE VA SUCHANA DENE PAR BHI NAHIN MILE ATHAH PRESHAK TO VAPAS". As regards respondent Nos. The case was then listed with office report dated 10-11-2005 to the effect that after service on opposite parties Nos. 2, 3 and 4, undelivered covers had been received back with post office remark "praptkarta KE PAS BAR BAR JANE VA SUCHANA DENE PAR BHI NAHIN MILE ATHAH PRESHAK TO VAPAS". As regards respondent Nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, neither registered cover was received back nor anyone had put in appearance on their behalf till the case was decided. 23. A perusal of the office report would show that service was effected on respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 with remark of the post office that "praptkarta KE PAS BAR BAR JANE VA SUCHANA DENE PAR BHI NAHIN MILE ATHAH PRESHAK TO VAPAS" which shows that postman had gone repeatedly to the addresses i. e. respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and also informed about the summons but no one contacted the Postman to collect the registered letters containing the summons sent by the Court for taking its delivery. 24. As regards respondent Nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, since neither acknowledgment cover nor any one has put in appearance hence service was sufficient on them. It appears that in the order sheet dated 20- 11-2006, it was inadvertently mentioned that notice on respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be deemed to be sufficient in fact it should have been respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in view of the office report dated 10-11- 2006 in respect of service of notice on respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and in respect of respondent Nos. 1 and 5 separately. 25. Any inadvertence or irregularity in service or mistake in the order in respect of deeming service would itself not render either the order bad or the service of notice bad in every case which appears from the law laid down by Honble Supreme Court in (2002)7 Supreme Court Cases 531, Basant Singh & Anr. v. Roman Catholic Mission. 26. In that case the Trial Court on 2-4-1986 ordered that summons be issued to the defendant tenants, appellants by ordinary process, as well as by registered post. The record of the case, showed that registered notices were issued to the appellants as indicated by postal receipts dated 24-4-1986. As by the next date fixed the service report had not been received the matter was adjourned to 30-6-1986. The record of the case, showed that registered notices were issued to the appellants as indicated by postal receipts dated 24-4-1986. As by the next date fixed the service report had not been received the matter was adjourned to 30-6-1986. On 2 that date the trial Court ordered issuance of fresh summons by ordinary as well as registered post within three days and also ordered substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 by publication of summons in a local daily called Dainik Bhaskar. As it happened the summons were published in another local daily known as Aacharan; a copy was produced on 5- 8-1986. On 22-8-1986 the trial Court ordered that proceedings be carried out ex parte. After examination of the respondent- plaintiffs witness on 5-9- 1986, ex parte judgment and decree were passed on 30-9-1986. The appellants applied for setting aside of ex parte decree on 6-10-1986. Their application was rejected by the Trial Court as was their appeal by the Appellate Court. Their revision petition was dismissed by the High Court. 27. The appellant never contested at any stage that the summons were improperly addressed and therefore, could not be served or that they were not prepaid or that they were not duly sent. Of the two appellants, one appeared as a witness, but merely made the statement that he had not received the summons; the other did not appear at all : "dismissing the appeal and confirming the ex parte decree against the appellant tenants, the Supreme Court Held : Once it is provided that summons were sent by registered post to a correct and given address, the defendants own conduct becomes important. In the present case the premises in question were occupied by two defendants, the appellants, jointly; H and B. H appeared and examined himself stating that he did not receive the registered letter. However, the defendant B did not appear and no evidence whatsoever, on his behalf, has been led to rebut the presumption in regard to service of summons sent to him under registered post with acknowledgment due. His own conduct shows that the registered summons had been duly served on him. H appeared and save and except the bald statement that registered letter was not tendered to him, no evidence whatsoever was let to rebut the presumption. His own conduct shows that the registered summons had been duly served on him. H appeared and save and except the bald statement that registered letter was not tendered to him, no evidence whatsoever was let to rebut the presumption. He could have examined the postman, who would have been the material witness and whose evidence would have bearing for proper adjudication. He has failed to discharge the onus cast upon him by the statute. This apart, it is inherently improbable that the registered summons were duly served on B, but not on H, when they occupied the tenanted premises jointly. In ordinary circumstances, if both the local dailies were circulated in the area the change of the name of the local daily from Dainik Bhaskar to Aacharan would not materially affect, the service of notice by way of substituted service, deemed to have been served, and would not invalidate the effect of substituted service just because the notice for substituted service has been published in the local daily which is not ordered by the Court. It is inherently probable that publication in the local daily Aacharan which is widely circulated in the area would have constituted a sufficient notice to the defendants. The 3 publication of the substituted service in the local daily Aacharan instead of Dainik Bhaskar is a mere irregularity in service of summons. " 28. Hence a mere irregularity in writing of the order sheet whereby service on respondents No. 1 to 4 was deemed to be sufficient instead of deeming it sufficient in respect of respondents No. 1 to 5. This inadvertent mistake in the order sheet will not make whole of the order sheet regarding service of notice on respondents No. 1 to 5 redundant. It may be noticed that notices were issued to respondents No. 1 to 5 and thereafter office has reported to service upon respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 on one hand and respondents No. 1 and 5 on the other by office report dated 10-11-2006. 29. It further appears from record that by order dated 13-12-2006 the Court had observed that service of notice has already been deemed sufficient and as no counter-affidavit has been filed, the case was directed to be listed in the next cause list for admission/hearing. Thereafter the petition was finally heard and allowed vide order dated 20-12-2006 to which recall application has been filed. Thereafter the petition was finally heard and allowed vide order dated 20-12-2006 to which recall application has been filed. 30. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner on Chapter VIII Rule 12 and Chapter XII Rule 10 of the High Court Rules, 1952, is also misconceived. Since Counsel for the petitioner after drawing attention of the Court to Chapter VIII Rule 12 had himself stated that it is not attracted, in view of explanation II to the aforesaid Rule, this Court need not delve upon this point. As admittedly, explanation II provides that notice sent by Registered Post shall unless it is received back from the Post Office undelivered, it shall be deemed to have been served. As regards Rule 10 of Chapter XII of the Allahabad High Court Rules, it provides that provisions of Order 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall apply to the service of notice in all proceedings of the High Court. 31. Further, a perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 12 would show that it provides for service of notice in lieu of or in addition to any other mode of service provided by law by sending it by Registered Post addressed the person upon whom it is to be served OR by publication in daily newspaper having vide circulation in the locality in which he is last known to actually and voluntarily being residing carrying on business or working for personal gain. This Rule is similarly worded as Order 5 Rule 20 (1) CPC regarding substituted service. 32. In the instant case, there is no question of any substituted service as the Court never ordered for any substituted service or service by any additional mode hence the argument of the respondent that no publication has been made and the rule has not been followed is, therefore, misconceived. Moreover affliction of copy of summons at some conspicuous place of the Court or upon some conspicuous place 4 in the house in which the defendant last resided or works for personal gain is for service by process server or peon in the Court below in respect of proceedings pending there. Moreover affliction of copy of summons at some conspicuous place of the Court or upon some conspicuous place 4 in the house in which the defendant last resided or works for personal gain is for service by process server or peon in the Court below in respect of proceedings pending there. This is resorted to where the Court below is satisfied and has reason to believe that defendant is keeping out of way for the purpose of avoiding service of summons or for any other reasons and the summons cannot be served upon him in ordinary way, it is only in that circumstances that the Court below may make an order for the summons order served by affixing a copy thereof upon a conspicuous place of his residence or work place where he is known to have last resided or worked. 33. In this case the High Court was satisfied with the service upon the respondents had been effected in accordance with law and it was deemed to have been served upon the respondents hence neither any order of substituted service was required nor was there any occasion for the Court to order for substituted service. 34. The argument of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the order for service of notice by publication upon respondents though having not been passed yet they ought to have been served by substituted service, therefore, has no force. As regards service of notice by post, under Chapter VIII Rule 12 is concerned, the Counsel for the petitioner after taking the Court through the provision stated that in view of Explanation II to Rule 12, the provision would not apply. 35. In view of Explanation II of the Chapter VIII Rule 2 of the High Court Rules that notice, sent by the Registered Post shall unless received back undelivered, will be deemed to have been served at the time on which it would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, the respondents shall be deemed to have been served. 36. In the instant case notice have been returned back with the remarks of the post office which clearly shows that the petitioner new about the notices and had not claimed it and were deliberately avoided the services. Chapter X Rule 12 is, therefore, not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case for this reason also. 37. 36. In the instant case notice have been returned back with the remarks of the post office which clearly shows that the petitioner new about the notices and had not claimed it and were deliberately avoided the services. Chapter X Rule 12 is, therefore, not applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case for this reason also. 37. It is not in dispute that the Registered notices were sent to the correct addresses. When the notices were sent to them for the first time on 13-9-2006, the respondents did not claim the notices sent by the Registered Post A. D. and after expiry of the period, they were returned back with remarks "baad Samay Ke Vapas" and placed on record of the case. 5 38. After direction to take fresh steps, notice were sent again to the respondents No. 1 and 5 when they were sent again to respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The notices in respect of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were received back with the remark "praptkarta KE PAS BAR BAR JANE VA SUCHANA DENE PAR BHI NAHIN MILE ATHAH PRESHAK KO VAPAS". As regards respondent Nos. 1 and 5 unregistered letter cover was not returned back even after 30 days. 39. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of 2005 (6) Supreme Court Cases 478, P. T. Thomas v. Thomas Job (2005 ). In paras 14 and 15 of the aforesaid case it has been held that : " (14 ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Though the notice was correctly addressed and despite the intimation by the post office, the notice was not accepted by the respondent and was returned unserved. In such circumstances, the presumption of law is that the notice has been served on the respondent. (15) The High Court, in our view, has also misinterpreted Section 27 of the Post Office Act, 1998. The requirement of the Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. The requirement of the Section has been complied with in this case. The reasoning of the High Court on this issue is not correct and not in accordance with factual position. In the notice issued, the postman has made the endorsement. This presumption is correct in law. He had given notice and intimation. Nevertheless, the respondent did not receive the notice and it was returned unserved. Therefore, in our view, there is no obligation cast on the appellant to examine the postman as assumed by the High Court. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 operates apart from that under the Post Office Act, 1998". 40. The question is whether in the circumstances of this case, the service of notice upon the respondents was sufficient or not ? 41. All the respondents were occupying the tenanted premises jointly. Except the bald averments made in the recall application that registered letter was not tendered to him, there is no evidence to rebut this presumption that service was effected by registered post particularly in view of the remark of the post office as stated above, hence any irregularity in service of summons would not render this service on the respondents illegal in absence of any denial that address on the registered post was incorrect as such it could not be served on them. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1972 operates apart from the provisions of Post Office Act, 1998 as has been held in the case of P. K. Thomas (supra) by the Apex Court. 6 42. The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in respect of to Order 5 Rule 9 read with Rule 17 of the C. P. C. is concerned, the position regarding the substituted services under Order V Rule 20 (1) is the same i. e. if the addressee is not available at the correct address which is the case in the instant writ petition, and he informs the persons living in the house about the delivery letter could be collected, sufficient compliance of service is made, unless the petitioner proves to the satisfaction of the Court that the address on the letter was incorrect and it was never served upon him. Once notice by registered post is sent at the correct address and acknowledgment due has not been returned back to the Court within 30 days from the date of summons, it would, therefore, deemed to have been served and presumption of service in law can be made. It may also be reiterated here that the Counsel for the respondents expressed that Order 5 Rule 17 would in the circumstances not be applicable. 43. However, it is suffice is to say that the respondents have not averred in their recall application or any of the application that the summons were not properly addressed or incorrectly addressed and, therefore, could not be served on them. It is also not their case that it was not pre-paid or they were not duly sent by the Court. 44. In my considered opinion all the respondents have rightly deemed to have been served though inadvertently in the order dated 20-11-2006, it was inadvertently noted that notice on respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be deemed to be served instead of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. This inadvertent mistake would not be fatal to the process of service as observed by their Lordship of the Apex Court in the case of Basant Singh & Anr. v. Roman Catholic Mission. 45. In this view of the matter, it is clear that the petitioner avoided the services and did not accept the summons even after having knowledge and information from the Postman. They did not file counter- affidavit in this case hence the averments made in the writ have to be taken as correct. From the aforesaid discussion of the relevant provisions referred above, I am of the considered opinion that no case for restoration or recall of the order dated 20-12-2006 has been made out which was passed on merits. In this view, the recall application is not maintainable as only a review could have been filed for review of the judgment on limited grounds. 46. For the reasons stated above, the application for recall is rejected. Application rejected. .