JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 2. The appeal is against the judgment of the learned Single Judge who dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants by a non-speaking order, therefore, it cannot be sustained as such. 3. The respondents have filed a suit alleging it to be in the representative capacity having as many as 21 defendants, three being in the official capacity i.e. State of Rajasthan, through Collector Sikar, Tehsildar Srimadhopur and Patwari village Dadia, Tehsil Srimadhopur. The present appellants were arrayed as defendants No. 17 and 18. Both are real brothers. The suit was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Revenges in 2004. 4. Out of 21 defendants, learned trial Judge proceeded ex-pane against 17 defendants which included the present appellants as well as the defendants representing the State. Name of defendant No. 13 was deleted at the request of the plaintiff and out of the remaining three defendants, only two i.e. defendants No. 15 and 16 submitted written-statements and they admitted averments of the plaintiffs. Annexure-R/i of the cause title of the plaint reveals that first notices Were issued on 22.01.2002 for 25.01.2002 and 12 defendants were ordered to be proceeded ex-parte on 25.01.2002 itself which included appellant No. 1. 5. It-was directed to be proceeded ex-parte against appellant No. 2 on 13.08.2002 as per the endorsement on the plaint, along with defendant No. 2 Sajjan Singh. 6. After decree was passed, the application for setting aside the decree was made by the present appellants on coming to know of decree through plaintiffs, inter alia on the ground that service was not effected on them and, therefore, prayed for setting aside the ex parte decree and permission to file written statements to contest the suit. 7. This application for setting aside the ex-parte decree is stated to be belated by six days. It is not in dispute that the notices were not served personally. The learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that on the summons there is endorsement of the wife of Gauri Shankar that her husband has gone to duty and she refused to accept notice. Similarly, Dwarka Prasad S/o Boduram, defendant No. 18 refused to accept the notice and, therefore, notices were affixed on the house. The learned trial Judge rejected the application on the ground that on the summons there is endorsement of the wife of Gauri Shankar that her husband has gone to duty and she refused to accept notice. Similarly, Dwarka Prasad S/o Boduram, defendant No. 18 refused to accept the notice and, therefore, notices were affixed on the house. Second ground which prevailed with the learned trial Judge was that Sitaram S/o Boduram, defendant No. 16 who had filed written statement, is brother of applicant and had knowledge about the case, therefore, the absence of knowledge on the part of two other brothers cannot be accepted. Consequently, the application was rejected. Learned trial Judge has also observed that even if the applicants had not been served properly, it can not be presumed that during the pendency of the suit for two & half years, this fact could not have come to their knowledge particularly when they claim to have come to know about ex parte decree within two months from the date of its making. They must have come to know about filing of the suit much earlier. The appeal against the same was also dismissed by the learned appellate Judge who agreed with the reasons which prevailed with the learned trial Judge. 8. Certified copy of the notices served on the respective appellants have been placed before us. About their veracity no question has been raised by the respondents-plaintiffs. So far as Gauri Shankar is concerned, it is not in dispute that he has been residing at Ratangarh and is not residing at village Dadia. From the aforesaid facts, it is thus apparent that when the process server gone to his residence, he was not available and in the absence of Gauri Shankar without even inquiring whether Gauri Shankar is really residing at village Dadia and whether there is any chance of his returning to his residence within reasonable time, so as to effect service personally made an endorsement of effecting service on wife who declined to accept the same and upon her refusal, affected the service by affixation. This was contrary to the specific provisions in this regard made under Order 5 Rule 15 CPC. This was contrary to the specific provisions in this regard made under Order 5 Rule 15 CPC. Service can be offered to any member of family where person to be served is not found at the residence where he is ordinarily residing at the place where summons are taken and not found if there is no chance of his returning to his residence within a reasonable time. The endorsement on summons by Gauri Shankar does not refer to any such attempt made by the process server before offering the summon to wife for the purpose of effecting service on them. Ordinarily, the service of summons are required to be served personally to the defendant or his authorised agent, who was authorised to accept the notice on his behalf, ordinarily service of summons is required to be made personally where parties are individuals and not arrayed in the commercial capacity. 9. The summons were also issued against Gauri Shankar for framing issues. The said notices were allegedly offered to his son who specifically stated that his father is serving at Ratangarh still, no attempt was made to serve Gauri Shankar at Ratangarh. Thus, service apparently was not sufficient to impute knowledge of the filing of the suit on the pan of Gauri Shankar at any time. 10. The fact that Gauri Shankar has come to know about the decree within two months of the passing of it, also cannot operate against his lack of knowledge of filing of the suit prior to that date. 11. It has been mentioned by the learned trial Judge that it could not be the case of the appellants that they were informed by the plaintiffs after the decree was passed. Apparently, the plaintiffs were not interested to apprise the defendants about filing of the suit but would certainly be interested to apprise them after passing the decree having obtained the fruits in their favour. 12. Thirdly, the trial court assumed that defendant No. 16 is brother of the applicants who was having the knowledge about filing of the civil suit. The assumption about proximity of the relationship between defendant No. 16 on the one hand and defendants No. 17 & 18 on other was founded on no basis. 12. Thirdly, the trial court assumed that defendant No. 16 is brother of the applicants who was having the knowledge about filing of the civil suit. The assumption about proximity of the relationship between defendant No. 16 on the one hand and defendants No. 17 & 18 on other was founded on no basis. In fact, defendant No. 16 Sita Ram has filed written statement, describing himself as resident of village Dadia Pujarion, that is to say different village whereas plaintiffs have stated his residence to be Dadia. Merely because name of the father as Sitaram resembles the name of father of applicant, he cannot be presumed to be their brother when both are residents of different villages. This fact however was denied by the applicants. The plaintiffs have not explained on what basis they have described Sita Ram as resident of village Dadia and how a resident of different village then stated in plaint has been served and if so at what address. The filing of a written statement of admission by that very defendant makes the whole gamut of services on defendant No. 16 and 17 and all the defendants keeping away from contest very suspicious. Thus, the. judgment of the trial Judge in rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is founded on non-existing ground. 13. Moreover, the facts of the present case speaks for themselves that there is serious cloud about the gamut of service on the defendants. If out of 21 defendants, the court has to proceed ex-parte against 17 defendants including State of Rajasthan through Collector, Tehsildar and Patwari and name of one of the defendants is deleted at the request of the plaintiffs themselves, then the only written statement of admission submitted by defendants No. 15 and 16 speaks for themselves about the doubtful nature of the service which has been effected on the defendants. Apparently, prima-facie, it appears to be a case that plaintiff has successful in keeping all contesting interests out of the court. It is not in ordinary course of human conduct where there is serious dispute between the plaintiff and defendants in regard to some land which the plaintiffs claim to be apart of the public land over which the defendants were alleged to be encroachers who despite their best efforts, are not removing their encroachments. 14. It is not in ordinary course of human conduct where there is serious dispute between the plaintiff and defendants in regard to some land which the plaintiffs claim to be apart of the public land over which the defendants were alleged to be encroachers who despite their best efforts, are not removing their encroachments. 14. In these circumstances, we are further of the opinion that in the aforesaid state of affairs, the stand of applicant Dwarka Prasad that notices were not offered to him at all to have any occasion to refuse to accept the notice, appears to be well founded. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, rather than taking note of the circumstances speaking for themselves from record, the trial court has acted in very casual manner by rejecting the application for setting aside ex parte decree on non existing grounds based on surmises and conjectures without even examining the case set up by the applicants about setting aside the ex-parte decree. For the same reason, learned appellate court has done nothing more except affirming the findings. 16. As we have noticed above, the learned Single Judge without going into the facts and circumstances appearing from material on record, has dismissed the writ petition by a non speaking order, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 17. The learned counsel for the respondents have vehemently argued that the defendants must be presumed to have knowledge about the dispute because the suit was in representative capacity and public notice of it was issued under Order 1 Rule 8, thus service of the suit must be presumed to be affected on them. 18. We are unable to accept this plea. It is admitted case that plaintiffs have filed suit in representative capacity and under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, a notice was required to be given on the filing of the suit for the purpose of informing about the representative nature of the claim of the accused appellant to bring a suit in representative capacity. However, if contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, it would require that in any case of representative suit filed by the plaintiff, there is no requirement of serving notice on the defendants and no notice would be required to be served on arrayed defendants. Such a view is not warranted on the comprehensive reading of the provisions of the Code. 19. Such a view is not warranted on the comprehensive reading of the provisions of the Code. 19. As a result, we allow the appeal, quash and set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition. Consequently, the orders of the trial court and appellate court rejecting application under Order 9 Rule 13 are set-aside. The application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exports decree dated 21.09.2004 is allowed and the ex-parte decree is set-aside and the trial court is directed to decide the suit fresh after providing opportunity to the present applicants to file written statements. The written statement shall be filed within time fixed by the trial court. 20. In the facts and circumstances, we further direct that the trial court shall reexamine the case of service affected on the defendants who have been proceeded ex parte as aforesaid. On being satisfied that service is not properly effected, he will issue fresh notice to such defendants also. After the written statement is filed in the pending suit by the present applicant within 30 days of getting the certified copy of the order, the trial court shall complete the trial as far as possible within a period of 9 months.Appeal allowed - Orders of courts below set aside. *******