JUDGMENT : 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. 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 prescribed [on such day not beyond thirty days from date of the institution of the suit. 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 prescribed [on such day not beyond thirty days from date of the institution of the suit. and Order 4 Rule 1 sub-clause (2) and (3) reads as under:- (2) Every plaint shall comply with the rules contained in Orders VI and VII, so far as they are applicable. (3) The plaint shall not be deemed to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirement specified in sub-rules (1) and (2) and provisions of Order 7 Rule 1(C) specifically stipulates that details to be mentioned in plaint must contain the name, description and place of resident of defendant, so far as they can be ascertained and according to Order 4 Rule 1(3), it has been made clear that the plaint shall not deem to be duly instituted unless it complies with the requirements specified in sub-Rule 1 and 2. 6. It is pertinent to note that Sojat Road is connected with Railway and it is 10 to 12 KM. away from Sojat City, whereas Sojat City is situated on National Highway and train connectivity is not there, so both these places are distinct and separate and are known as different places, perusal of the plaint shows that all the defendants have been shown as resident of Sojat, their area of residence and in which place of “Sojat” they reside is not mentioned and the descriptions of the defendant as shown in the plaint, is enough to indicate that the plaint lacks necessary requirements so, the suit appears to have not been “duly instituted”, but the Court of S.D.O., Sojat did not consider this aspect and ignoring the mandate of procedure, issued process in the suit, which too was not acceptable. 7. 7. It has also been pleaded and argued that a number of defendants were no more and were not alive at the time of presentation of the suit, despite without impleading or getting the name/s of their legal representatives, deceased were arrayed as parties, which too is not tenable because impleadment of a deceased person is not permissible under the law, not only a solo defendant is stated to have been impleaded after demise but several such persons have been stated to be impleaded as parties, post demise, decree passed against a dead person is nothing but a nullity in the eye of law. 8. Sub-rule (1A) of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC lays down that the insertion of the notice is to be made in a daily newspaper circulating in the area in which the defendant is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain, whereas, want of necessary particulars did not divulge these factual aspects as to where was the residence of the defendant or to which place he/she voluntarily resided or carried business for gain, in such a situation, purpose of substituted service does also goes futile in view of lack of necessary particulars, as prescribed in sub-rule (1A) of Rule 20 of Order 5 of CPC. 9. Application seeking substituted service also lacks in reasonable grounds, because contents of application discloses that there were 76 defendants and out of these only 6 defendants, namely, defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 11, 51 and 76 were served and only it has been mentioned therein that service is not being effected upon the defendants despite their being in Sojat. 9. Application seeking substituted service also lacks in reasonable grounds, because contents of application discloses that there were 76 defendants and out of these only 6 defendants, namely, defendants Nos.1, 2, 3, 11, 51 and 76 were served and only it has been mentioned therein that service is not being effected upon the defendants despite their being in Sojat. Perusal of order-sheets of S.D.O., Sojat reveals that suit was filed before the court of S.D.O., Sojat on 03.05.2011 and on 24.05.2011, defendants Nos.3, 5 and 51 put in their appearance through counsel and on 08.06.2011, the summons issued, did not return with any remark whatsoever, so the suit was listed for 01.08.2011 and on this date, an application was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking permission for publication of notice for substituted service, order allowing this application as mentioned in order-sheet dated 01.08.2011 says that, “in view of multiple quantum of defendants, permission to publish their notice in Rajasthan Patrika is accorded to”, which is enough to indicate that the court of the S.D.O., Sojat did not act according to due procedure as enshrined under Order 5 Rule 9 CPC for effecting service of summons. Rule 9(3) of Order 5 CPC prescribes mode of service through registered post acknowledgment due as well, which too was not effected, nor mode of affixing summons as per provisions of Order 5 Rule 20(i) was resorted to. Order-sheets of court of S.D.O., Sojat are suffice to reveal that the day, on which application seeking substituted service was moved, summons sent on earlier dates were even not returned but S.D.O., Sojat Court did not wait for the same and without any cogent and reasonable ground, allowed the application in a cursory way with a note that owing to multiplicity of the defendants, permission for substituted service is granted, which is not a reasonable ground to permit substituted service. Totality of the aforesaid, discloses that court of S.D.O., Sojat did not abide with the prescribed mode of effecting service and without waiting for return of summon already issued, straightway permitted substituted service on grounds not prescribed under Civil Procedure Code. 10. Doctrine of audi alteram partem is termed to be a necessary limb of natural justice that none should be condemned unheard. Proper opportunity is necessary to be observed in order to afford opportunity to the opposite party. 10. Doctrine of audi alteram partem is termed to be a necessary limb of natural justice that none should be condemned unheard. Proper opportunity is necessary to be observed in order to afford opportunity to the opposite party. Fair play is essential to be observed and opportunity to be heard must be afforded to everybody against whom a suit is brought, though there is no impediment in proceeding ex-parte, if even after a reasonable opportunity and due service of summon, one fails to respond, but it amazes, as to what was the reason of haste with the court of S.D.O., Sojat in not effecting service of summons upon the defendants in a regular prescribed mode and without adhering to the provisions of procedure, and waiting for service of summons already issued, directly issued orders for substituted service on the ground of multiplicity of defendants, which may not be a ground to permit application seeking substituted service. Defendants have pleaded on oath that several of arrayed defendants were no more, factum of which is not disputed before us, that defendants No.4-Kaluram, 6-Ghevar Ram, 8-Gordhan Ram, 10-Chunaram, 12-Chunnilal, 13-Chhagna, 14-Navla, 15-Boriya, 16-Boriya, 17-Manglaram, 22-Chhaila, 33-Pokar, 24-Lumbaram, 25-Bhikaram, 28-Shankar, 31-Faudi, 33-Dalla, 34-Bhanwariya, 38-Pemaram, 40-Bastiya, 43-Lichhman, 46-Sukraram, 45-Sugal S/o Navla, 50-Heeralal, 56-Sugni Bai, 57-Mangilal, 61-Modaram, 62-Rudreshwar Mahadev, 63-Bhoriya, 64-Boriya, 65-Mangaliya, 69-Bhiva, 70-Mishrilal, 72-Ganesh, 73-Bhola and 74-Mangla were no more at the time of presentation of the suit. 11. In light of the aforesaid, we feel that the court of S.D.O., Sojat manifestly erred in permitting substituted service against the defendants, a majority of whom were not even surviving and insertion of the notice having been issued without adhering the due process and mandate of natural law. 12. In catena of judgments, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has ordained that doctrine of audi alteram partem is an essential part of natural justice, so it is paramount to adopt lawful procedure in order to afford due opportunity to the affected. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and impugned order passed by learned Single Bench dated 04.11.2015, as well as the order passed by the Board of Revenue dated 10.09.2015 and the orders passed by the S.D.O., Sojat dated 01.08.2011 and that of 24.09.2012 are set aside and court of S.D.O., Sojat is directed to adopt normal mode of effecting service as per the prescribed procedural law and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellants, herein. Parties are directed to appear before the court of S.D.O., Sojat on 01.03.2017. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned S.D.O. court forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.