JUDGMENT

The appellants, who are defendants 1 to 6 before the trial court, have preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2015, passed in OS No. 68/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi.

2. Parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties with metes and bounds. The suit summons were not served on defendants 1 to 6, and hence notice to them was issued through substituted service by means of paper publication. In spite of this, they did not appear and remained absent, and accordingly, they were placed ex-parte. Despite the notice being served, defendant No. 7 also did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff No. 3 was examined as PW.1 and 13 documents were marked as Exhibits PW1 to PW13. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, defendants 1 to 6 are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs have shown the wrong address in the cause title and in the plaint. The address of the appellant/defendants 1 to 6 as shown in the cause title of this appeal is the correct address. It is further submitted that when the summons were issued to defendants 1 to 6, the bailiff submitted his report stating that, “upon inquiry, it was found that they had left the village”, and hence the summons were not served on them and returned to the Court as they are not residing at the present address. After returning the summons, the plaintiffs did not furnish the correct address of defendants 1 to 6. Thereafter, on 23.10.2013, plaintiffs filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC for the issuance of notice through paper publication to defendants 1 to 6, and the same was allowed by the trial Court. He further submits that the defendants 1 to 6 were unaware of the ex-parte decree obtained behind their back, and only on 14.12.2016 the defendant No.7 (respondent No.5 herein) approached the appellant and showed him the petition copy and the appellant No.5 herein, after obtaining the same, approached the counsel on 15.12.2016 and ascertained about the said copy and was surprised to know that a suit for partition and separate possession and declaration claiming one-tenth share in the agricultural land in Survey No.61/2 measuring 6 acres situate at Kadni village was decreed in favour of plaintiffs and that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 was not binding on them. Further, it is submitted that the suit was decreed ex-parte without them being served with any notice and further on inquiry, he came to know that final decree proceedings in FDP No.7/2016 were filed seeking their share as per the decree. Immediately thereafter, he applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree and approached the counsel for filing this appeal. Hence, on these grounds, he seeks to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remand the matter to provide an opportunity to the appellant/defendants 1 to 6 to file their written statement and proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

5. Notice to respondents 1 to 5 is duly served and they remained absent and unrepresented. Hence, the arguments on behalf of respondents, is taken as nil.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, the following points would arise for consideration:

(a) Whether the appellants/defendants 1 to 6 have made out a ground to set aside the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree and to remand the matter to the trial Court?

(b) What order?

My answer to the above points are:

Point No.1: In the Affirmative.

Point No.2: As per final order.

Regarding point No.1:

7. I have examined the material placed before this Court. The impugned ex-parte judgme