G.R.MOOLCHANDANI,J. - (1.) The appellants have challenged the validity of the judgment dated 04.11.2015 passed by the learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12940 of 2015 (Chunnilal & Ors. v. Board of Revenue & Ors.) whereby the said writ petition was dismissed and the order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Board of Revenue was affirmed.
(2.) While pressing the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the substituted service was wrongly inserted in the newspaper without adhering the process of normal mode of service of summons by S.D.O., Sojat, the suit was presented against several such persons, who were not surviving on the date of presentation of the Suit but the court of S.D.O., Sojat, without affording opportunity of hearing, passed unlawful order and S.D.O., Sojat has wrongly rejected application of the appellants to afford opportunity of being heard and revision petition preferred before the Board of Revenue was also dismissed in cursory way, learned Single Bench has also upheld the orders, which is not lawful, so this appeal be allowed and the order of the learned Single Bench as well as of Board of Revenue and S.D.O., Sojat be set aside and the appellants-defendants be afforded opportunity to be heard and they may be permitted to submit their counter and court of S.D.O. Sojat be directed to issue summons to unserved defendants, so that they may put in their appearance and counter the suit. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff has submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order/s and S.D.O., Sojat has rightly ordered to publish notices for substituted service under the provisions of Order 5, Rule 20 CPC and nothing wrong has been committed, there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Single Bench, so, the appeal be dismissed.
(3.) Heard rival submissions and perused the record and examined the judgments impugned.;