Moolchandani, J.

Reportable 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. 12940/2015 (Chunnilal & Ors. Vs. 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.

4. The methodology of process of resorting to the provisions of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC is very specific, which reads as under:-

“20. Substituted service.-

(1) Where the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the court house, and also upon some conspicuous part of the house (if any) in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain, or in such other manner as the court thinks fit.

(1A) Where the court acting under sub-rule (1) orders service by an advertisement in a newspaper, the newspaper shall be a daily newspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain.

(2) Effect of substituted service-Service substituted by order of the court shall be as effectual as if it had been made on the defendant personally.

(3) Where service substituted, time for appearance to be fixed-Where service is substituted by order of the Court, the Court shall fix such time for the appearance of the defendant as the case may require.”

Service of summons is to be made as per the provisions of CPC, which is applicable to the revenue courts, as well, but in this case, stipulated procedure has not been adhered to, the order-sheet dated 01.08.2011 also establishes this aspect, since nothing is reasoned there on these counts, only reason of multiplicity of several respondents, order for insertion of notice through publication has been made.

5. Civil Procedure Code lays down procedure of issuance and effectuating mode of summons. Section 27 of CPC reads as under:-

27. Summons to defendants.- Where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim and may be observed in manner pr