1. CAN 1 of 2025 is an application for recall of an order dated July 21, 2025.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant argues that the applicant, who was one of the proforma opposite parties in the revisional application, was not served properly, which is borne out by the concerned postal track report annexed to the affidavit-of-service which had been filed on the relevant date by the revisionist petitioner, which indicates that, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, the item was delivered to the sender, clearly indicating that the service was not effected on the present applicant.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that the Court proceeded on the premise that good service had been effected on all the opposite parties and had taken up the matter whereas the present applicant, being a proforma opposite party to the revisional application, was not served properly.

4. Accordingly, t