- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the order dated 4.3.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer ('BOR'), whereby the revision petition filed by the respondents No.1 to 6 - applicants has been accepted and the order dated 18.12.2001 passed by the SDO rejecting application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and order dated 3.3.2004 passed by the Revenue Appellate Authority, Barmer ('RAA') dismissing the appeal have been set-aside. The petitioners filed a suit under Section 88 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 ('the Act'). The suit was decreed ex-parte by judgment dated 30.6.1994 passed by the SDO, Barmer. The respondents-applicants filed application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and Order I, Rule 10 CPC before the SDO. The SDO by order dated 18.12.2001 rejected the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC by observing that the service was legally done and the notice was published in the news-paper properly and no reason has been indicated to restart the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed appeal. The RAA upheld the order of rejection of application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC. In the revision filed by the respondents, the BOR by a detailed analytical judgment, came to the conclusion that the service on the respondents cannot be said to be proper and the procedure adopted by the SDO was not correct and consequently reversed the orders dated 18.12.2001 and 3.3.2004 and set-aside the ex-parte decree against the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the BOR was not justified in interfering with the orders passed by two authorities below and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set-aside. It was also submitted that looking to the nature of the suit, the proceedings were rightly initiated under Order I, Rule 8 CPC and even if, the notice was not published in daily news-paper, the same cannot be said to be such an illegality which required interference by the BOR under revisional jurisdiction and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set- aside. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the SDO registered the suit and ordered for issuance of notice to the respondents on 24.1.1987. On 3.6.1987, indicating that defendants No.1 to 6 despite service have remained absent, ex- parte proceedings were initiated. Whereafter, on the same day i.e. on 3.6.1987, the application filed by the petitioners on 20.1.1987 under Order I, Rule 8 CPC was taken up and it was ordered that as the number of khatedars was large and there is likelihood of lot of time being consumed in their service, notice be published in 'daily news-paper' under Order I, Rule 8 CPC. The petitioners got published the said notice in Hindi weekly news-paper 'Dhora Dharti' on 14.1.1988 and the said service of notice under Order I, Rule 8 CPC was taken as proper by the SDO and he proceeded to pass ex-parte decree. It is surprising that once the matter was set ex-parte qua the defendants No.1 to 6 on 3.6.1987, how could the SDO order for issuance of notice under Order I, Rule 8 CPC on the presumption that the persons set ex-parte would be representing the large number of defendants in representative capacity. Besides the above, the notice was required to be published in any daily news-paper as ordered by the SDO, however, the same was got published in a weekly news-paper in gross violation of directions and provisions of Order V, Rule 20 CPC, which provides that the advertisement should be published in daily news-paper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided. In that view of the matter, the SDO was not at all justified in passing an ex-parte decree without serving the notice on defendants therein based on illegal service under Order I, Rule 8 CPC. Both the SDO and RAA while deciding the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC and the appeal therefrom respectively have passed orders in wholly cursory and slipshod manner and without dealing with the issue raised have rejected the application and the appeal therefrom. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the BOR was not justified in setting aside the orders passed by the SDO and the RAA. No interference is called for in the order impugned. The writ petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.;