(1.) M. Katju, J. In this case by order of this Court, dated 27-2-1991 petitioner had been directed to serve respondent No. 3 by Dasti notices. An affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner and in Paragraph 2 it has been stated that the petitioner was directed to serve respondent No. 2 by dasti summon but it is stated that the respondent No. 2 has refused to accept the notice.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has stated that by an inadvertant mistake respondent No. 2 has been mentioned instead of respondent No. 3 in the affidavit.

I am of the opinion that this mistake is purely accidental and hence I accept it. There is already an office report, dated 13-4-1995 stating that the notices were issued on 30-7-1991 by registered post but the same have not been returned back.

(3.) UNDER Explanation II of Chapter VIII, Rule 12, of High Court Rules 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. In my opinion in view of Explanation 11 to Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the High Court Rules, there is sufficient service on