JUDGMENT 1. - By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 22nd July, 2011, whereby the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, No.1, Alwar ordered to issue fresh notices to the respondents no. 2 to 5 and gainsaid to send the notices through registered post. 2. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order, it is noticed that a suit filed by the petitioner came to be decreed in his favour and against the respondents. Pursuant to the decree passed by the learned trial court, the petitioner filed execution application, which has still been pending in the same court. Despite there being decree in favour of the petitioner, the District Congress Committee decided to administer oath to one Ashok Dixit for the post of President, District Congress Committee, Alwar. The petitioner filed an application Annexure-3 imploring that the District Congress Committee, Alwar be restrained from administering oath of the office of President to Mr. Ashok Dixit. Learned trial court issued notice to the respondent. It is found that the service of notice was found to have been made only on one respondent no.1. Rest of the notices were returned with the report that the respondents no. 2 to 5 refused to accept the notices. Despite this, the learned trial court observed that service of notice on the respondents no. 2 to 5 was not complete and ordered to issue fresh notices. The petitioner made simultaneous prayer to send the notices through registered post also but that prayer was gainsaid by the court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the service of notices on the respondents nos. 2 to 5 ought to have been treated complete or the learned trial court ought to have directed the notices to be sent through registered post also. The matter is of urgent nature and despite the urgency of the application, the learned trial court gave along adjournment and fixed the date on 19th September, 2011. If such a long adjournment is granted in such cases of urgent nature, then the whole purpose of filing the application shall get frustrated and the petitioner shall be deprived of seeking justice. 4. If such a long adjournment is granted in such cases of urgent nature, then the whole purpose of filing the application shall get frustrated and the petitioner shall be deprived of seeking justice. 4. The prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be genuine and just. Undeniably and un-disputably, the learned trial court, looking to the urgency of the matter ought to have given a short adjournment. There does not appear any reason for the court to have treated the service of notices improper that too when the respondents no. 2 to 5 had declined to accept the notices. Nevertheless, it was for the satisfaction of the court, which issued the notices. In these circumstances, I deem it just and proper to direct the learned trial court to send the notices to the un-served respondents no. 2 to 5 through registered post also and give a short adjournment in the matter as it seems to be a case of urgent nature. Learned trial court is also expected to pass orders in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner may file an application afresh within a period of one week and I am sanguine that the court shall decide the said application as early as possible. 6. With the afore-stated observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.Petition disposed of. *******