1. The defendants, in O.S. No. 125 of 2003 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, are the appellants in the present Appeal Suit, preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity, CPC).

2. Heard Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri V.N.R. Prashanth, learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the material available before this Court.

3. This Appeal Suit challenges the judgment and decree, dated 22.11.2004, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in O.S.No.125 of 2003, instituted by the respondents herein, praying for cancellation of two sale deeds, in respect of the suit schedule property, bearing document Nos.9208/02 and 9209/02, dated 26.10.2002, and for a direction to the defendants to execute the deed of cancellation before the Sub-Registrar, Medchel.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. The defendants-appellants herein remained ex parte.

5. The learned II Additional District Judge decreed the suit ex parte on 22.11.2004. The present Appeal Suit, filed under Section 96 CPC by the defendants in the suit, challenges the validity and the legal sustainability of the said judgment and decree.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants herein that the judgment rendered by the learned II Additional District Judge is erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and also not in conformity with the provisions of Order XX Rule 4 CPC; that the learned Judge grossly erred in decreeing the suit ex parte contrary to the provisions of Order V CPC. In order to bolster his submissions and contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. (1999) 8 SCC 396

2. AIR 1974 AP Pg.1 (FB)

3. AIR 1957 AP Pg.1 (FB)

7. On the contrary, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents herein that the learned II Additional District Judge rendered the judgment strictly in accordance with law, as such, the same does not warrant any interference of this Court under Section 96 CPC. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that, only after effecting service of notice on the defendants, by way of publication in a daily newspaper, under the provisions of Order V Rule 20 CPC, the learned Judge decreed the suit. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since the defendants-appellants herein did not contest the matter before the Court below, they cannot maintain the present Appeal Suit under Section 96 CPC.

8. In the above background, now the points that arise for consideration of this Court, in the present Appeal Suit, are as under:

1. Whether the judgment rendered by the Court below is in accordance with the provisions of Order XX Rule 4 CPC?

2. Whether the Court below adhered to the other provisions of Order V CPC before ordering substitute service under the provisions of Order V Rule 20 CPC?

3. Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Additional District Judge are sustainable and tenable?

Point No.1:

In order to examine the issue as to whether the judgment rendered by the learned II Additional District Judge is in conformity with the provisions of Order XX Rule 4 CPC, it would be appropriate and apposite to refer to the said provision of law.

9. Order XX CPC deals with the judgment and decree. Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 4 of Order XX CPC deals with the judgment of the Small Causes Courts and sub-rule (2) of the said rule deals with the judgments of other Courts. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 of Order XX CPC reads as under:

“judgments other than in Small Cause Suits shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.”

10. In the instant case, the complaint of the defendants-a