Sangeet Lodha, J.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 10.9.15 of the Board of Revenue Rajasthan, whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioners under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 against the order dated 24.9.12 passed by the Assistant Collector, Sojat, rejecting an application preferred by the petitioners questioning the propriety of substituted service upon the co-defendants, stands rejected.

2. The relevant facts are that a suit preferred by the second respondent for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and damages in respect of the agriculture land comprising various khasras situated at Sojat, is pending trial before the Assistant Collector, Sojat. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff, respondent no.2 herein, made an application for substituted service upon the un-served defendants. The application was allowed by the Assistant Collector, Sojat vide order dated 1.8.11. Accordingly, the notice of the un-served respondents was published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika'. The petitioners, who are co-defendants preferred an application, questioning the service upon un-served defendants as complete on the basis of the substituted service, stating that there were no circumstances existing so as to direct the service upon un-served defendants by way of publication of notice in the daily newspaper. That apart, it was stated that some of the defendants have already expired yet service upon them is treated to be complete. Accordingly, it was prayed that the directions may be issued for personal service upon the defendants. The application was contested by the second respondent by filing a reply thereto.

3. After due consideration, the application was rejected by the Assistant Collector, Sojat vide order dated 24.9.12. Aggrieved thereby, a revision petition preferred by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue, stands dismissed. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the Board of Revenue has failed to appreciate the ambit and scope of the provisions of Order 5, Rule 20 CPC. Learned counsel submitted that all the defendants were required to be served personally in ordinary way and in absence of existence of the circumstances warranting substituted service upon the defendant, the order passed by the court directing substituted service, was absolutely unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that the procedure of substituted service was resorted to by the court below in mechanical manner. Learned counsel submitted that even the fact that some of the defendants have expired has also been ignored by the court below.

5. In the considered opinion of this court, the petitioners who have already been served in ordinary course, cannot be said to be person aggrieved by the order passed by the court below directing substituted service upon other unserved defendants. The judicial discretion exercised by the court below in directing substituted service upon the defendants, declined to be interfered with by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, does not suffer from any jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction.

6. If some of the defendants who are alleged to have expired, are treated to be served, it is always open for the petitioners to bring the factum of death of the defendants to the notice of the court. Obviously, on the facts regarding the death of defendants being brought on record, the plaintiff shall take the appropriate steps for substitution of the legal representatives of the deceased-defendants, failing which the consequences will follow. Needless to say that any order passed by the court against the dead person is nullity and therefore, merely because the defendants, who have died are treated to be served on the basis of substituted service, the consequences of not bringing the legal representatives of deceased defendant on rec