IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/49/2025 IA No. CAN/1/2025 Shri. A.Palswamy Vs Shri Sarjeevan Lall Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Ms. K.Bhawani Mr. Adarsh Ilango … for the petitioner Mr. Arul Prasanth … for the applicant/respondent August 11, 2025 [AKB] Item No.2 CAN/1/2025 is an application seeking recalling of the judgement and order passed by this Court on August 05, 2025. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that the notice in the revisional application being CO/49/2025 was not served upon the respondent. The petitioner in the revisional application obtained the judgement and order dated August 05, 2025 behind the back of the respondents therein. The learned advocate for the applicant in CAN/1/2025 refers to the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the track report which is obtained from the website of the postal department. The Track report shows that the item was returned with a report ‘Direct Deposit- on Addressee instructions’. According to the learned advocate for the applicant, notice was never served upon the respondent and the judgement and order dated August 05, 2025 was passed without affording the respondent an opportunity of being heard. 2 The track report shows the booked item was deposited directly at the instruction of the addressee. The petitioner of CO/49/2025 was a tenant. Such tenant filed a civil suit being Other Suit No. 21 of 2024. In such suit the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking local inspection of the premises under his tenancy. The said application was rejected by the learned Trial Court. The petitioner/plaintiff preferred CO/49/2025 against order of such rejection of his application under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Trial Court. By the judgement and order passed on August 05, 2025 in CO/49/2025 the order dated July 03, 2025 passed in Other Suit No. 21 of 2024 was set aside and it was directed in the said judgement and order that the learned Trail Court shall proceed to appoint an advocate for the purpose mentioned in the petition under Order 39 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned advocate for the applicant has stated that no notice was served upon the opposite parties in CO/49/2025. However, from the track report it appears that the notice was sent to the opposite party and it was directed to be deposited directly by postal department at the instruction of the addressee. Such instructions by the addressee as noted in the postal track shows that the addressee was intimated and being aware, since the addressee declined to accept the same for which it was directed by the postal department to be deposited directly at the instructions of the addressee. Since the 3 intimation of notices issued upon the opposite party was served upon him and it was returned following such intimation which amounts to service. In such circumstances, I find no merit in the application and the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs. CAN/1/2025 is accordingly disposed. Just after passing the above order, learned advocate for the applicant in CAN/1/2025 prays for stay of the order passed today. Considered. Prayer is refused. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)