Judgment : 1. Notice for final disposal of the matter was issued by this Court on 10-10-2012. The respondent is served and is represented by Shri S.G. Gawai, Advocate. 2. Admit. Heard the matter finally by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. 3. Regular Civil Suit No.47 of 2001 was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Buldhana. Hence, the original plaintiff preferred the Regular Civil Appeal No. 180 of 2003. By Judgment and order dated 17-10-2005, the appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree, declaring the Sale Deed dated 20-4-1999 bearing No.1489 executed by the appellant No.1 in favour of the appellant No.3 and the Sale Deed dated 16-2-2000 executed by the appellant No.3 in favour of the appellant No.2 to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 is directed to handover the possession of the suit land to the appellant and enquiry into mesne profits as contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 of the Code has also been passed. In the Judgment, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are shown to be absent when the appeal was heard. Though, the appellant No.3 was served, she did not appear. Hence, the matter was decided in the absence of all the appellants. 4. M.J.C. No.16 of 2010 was filed under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code by all the three appellants for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 2003 on 17-10-2005. This application has been rejected by the learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Buldhana by its Judgment and order dated 31-7-2012. Hence, this appeal by the original defendants. 5. It is not in dispute, that the appellant No.3 was served with the notice of appeal but she remained absent and did not participate in the proceedings of the appeal. According to Shri Khapre, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, the appellant No.3 ceased to have any interest in the suit property for the reason that she had sold the property in favour of the appellant No.2. This contention cannot be accepted and on the face of it, the same is false. The appellate Court has set aside the Sale Deed executed by the appellant No.1 in favour of the appellant No.3 and also the Sale Deed executed by the appellant No.3 in favour of the appellant No.2. This contention cannot be accepted and on the face of it, the same is false. The appellate Court has set aside the Sale Deed executed by the appellant No.1 in favour of the appellant No.3 and also the Sale Deed executed by the appellant No.3 in favour of the appellant No.2. If she was not aggrieved by decree passed in appeal, there was no reason for her to prefer an application under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code for setting aside ex-parte Judgment and decree passed in appeal and also this appeal. 6. So far as the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the case in the application under Order XLI Rule 21 of the Code for setting aside ex-parte decree was that the appellant No.1 was looking after the case since beginning and he acted as the caretaker. The Bailiff report shows that the notice was served upon him but he refused to tender the acknowledgment. This is the finding of fact recorded by the appellate Court and no ground of challenge is raised to it. So far as the appellant No.2 is concerned, the finding recorded in the order is that he was absent when the Bailiff went to the place on 21-3-2004. Hence, the service of notice to him, was sought to be effected upon the appellant No.1 who is the father and the adult male member available in the house. He refused to accept the summons and the notice and also did not permit the Bailiff to affix the summons on the outer part of the house. The parties have led evidence and the appellate Court has appreciated it holding that Exhibits 22 and 23 which are the Bailiffs report, clearly shows that the service of summons was proper and served upon the appellant Nos. 1 and 2. 7. Instead of going into the technicalities of the non compliance of Order V Rules 15 to 18 of the Code, and the findings in Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 2003 about the service of notice, the alternate mode to be adopted for effecting the service and keeping the matter pending in this Court; it shall be in the interest of all the parties that the regular civil appeal is heard on merits by giving an opportunity to the appellants to defend the matter. The respondent can be compensated by imposing the costs. 8. The respondent can be compensated by imposing the costs. 8. In view of above, this appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order dated 17-10-2005 passed by the learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Buldhana is hereby quashed and set aside. M.J.C. No.16 of 2010 is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and decree dated 17-10-2005 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.180 of 2003. The appellants are, however, directed to pay the costs of Rs. 20,000/- to the respondent within a period of one week from the date of the first appearance of the parties before the appellate Court, failing which, this appeal itself should be treated as dismissed. The parties to appear before the appellate Court on 26-32-013. The office is directed to take immediate steps to remit the record and proceedings before the appellate Court and ensure that it reaches the appellate Court on or before 22-3-2013. The appellate Court to decide the appeal on or before 30-4-2013. The parties to co-operate the appellate Court in disposal of the matter. No fresh notices shall be issued to any of the parties. The appellate Court to decide the matter on day to day basis. If any adjournment is sought by the appellants, it shall be subject to the costs of Rs. 2000/- for such an adjournment.