Aloke Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) THE contention of the applicants is that a caveat had been filed and service had been effected on the parties concerned. For the purpose of showing the same, postal receipts had been filed which are available from the record and in view of aforesaid service, the condition provided in Rule 5 Chapter XXII of High Court Rules having been satisfied, the respondents became entitled to hearing before interim order was passed. In the present case the same having not been done, interim order is liable to be recalled. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Rule 5 of Chapter XXII requires both lodging of caveat as also service of the same upon the parties concerned. It has been contended that in the present case postal receipts have been filed but no material has been produced to show that the parties had been actually served. As the statements made in the counter affidavit disclose that the parties were not served, there is no reason for still holding a presumption in favour of service. After considering the aforesaid contentions, I find that with regard to presumption of service, there is no rebuttal by an affidavit filed by the parties concerned. In the rejoinder affidavit also nothing has been said in respect of statement that service had been effected or statements made by the petitioners are not acceptable for any given circumstance.
(2.) IN view of aforesaid, the condition provided under Rule 5 of Chapter XXII of the said Rules having not been satisfied, there is no reason for recalling interim order passed on the writ petition. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicants relied on the judgment in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Bhopa District Muzaffarnagar v. Deputy Director of Education, I Region Meerut and others : 1996 (28) ALR 4 (Sum.) : (1996) 1 UPLBEC 313 But, a perusal of the said judgment does not show any thing that non -service of caveat upon the parties concerned requires recall of the order passed ex -parte after caveat was filed and service had not been effected on the parties concerned. In view of aforesaid findings, this application is rejected. But, I make it clear that the matter has not been decided on merit as only this application has been decided and respondents will be at liberty to take steps for vacating or modifying the interim order after filing counter affidavit.;