JUDGMENT : This appeal by the defendants is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.1252/2013 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. Heard Shri Somashekar Angadi, learned counsel for appellants and Shri G.V. Narasimhamurthy, learned Counsel for respondent. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the Trial Court. 4. Shri Angadi, learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the Judgment and Decree was passed ex-parte against the defendants. He further submitted that, the notices were ordered on the defendants on 13.2.2013 returnable on 2.4.2013. 5. Adverting to the order sheet maintained by the Trial Court, he pointed out that, the office note recorded on 2.4.2013 shows that, the notices were reportedly returned but served by affixure on the door without any judicial order having been passed in that regard. The said office note was accepted by the learned Trial Judge and the defendants were placed ex-parte. 6. Shri Angadi, adverting to Order V Rule 20 of CPC, further submitted that, the summons by way of affixure would be ordered only when 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. In the instant case, no such contingency had arisen. Accordingly, he prays for allowing this appeal. 7. Shri G.V. Narasimhamurthy, learned Counsel for the respondent argued in support of impugned Judgment and Order. 8. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court is: “Whether the defendants were properly served?” 9. Perusal of the original order sheet reveals that, the notices were returnable on 2.4.2013. The office note dated 13.2.2013 and 2.4.2013, reads as follows: “13-02-2013 D1 to D5 SS, notice Put up Sd/- 2-4-2013 Pft –SN Notice issued-returned D1-Refused (sic) affixture on (sic) the Door D2:-_______”_______ D3:-_______”_______ D4:-_______”_______ D5:-_______”_______ Heard. Issue suit Summons and Emergent Notice on IA No. I to the defendants returnable by 2/4/2013. Sd/- 13/2 All the defendants called out. Absent. Suit summons is refused by defendants and summons were (sic) affixed. It is sufficient. All the defendants are placed ex-parte posted for evidence of plaintiff by 5/7/2013. Sd/- 2/4/13” Once, the notices were returned, it was incumbent upon the Registry to note the factual position. Sd/- 13/2 All the defendants called out. Absent. Suit summons is refused by defendants and summons were (sic) affixed. It is sufficient. All the defendants are placed ex-parte posted for evidence of plaintiff by 5/7/2013. Sd/- 2/4/13” Once, the notices were returned, it was incumbent upon the Registry to note the factual position. It is not understandable as to how the affixure on the door is also recorded in the order sheet without a judicial order. The defendants have been placed ex-parte on the strength of office note dated 2.4.2013 and the learned Trial Judge has proceeded further. 10. Order V Rule 20 of CPC, reads as follows: “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 has 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.” 11. The learned Trial Judge ought not to have accepted the office note, unless procedure prescribed under Order V Rule 20 of CPC was strictly complied with. In the instant case, order dated 2.4.2013 placing the defendants ex-parte is clearly unsustainable. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree is liable to be set aside. The learned Trial Judge ought not to have accepted the office note, unless procedure prescribed under Order V Rule 20 of CPC was strictly complied with. In the instant case, order dated 2.4.2013 placing the defendants ex-parte is clearly unsustainable. Consequently, the Judgment and Decree is liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed; (ii) Judgment and Order dated 8.11.2013 passed in O.S.No.1252/2013 on the file of V Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, is set aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law; (iv) Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 12.4.2018 and collect further dates from the Trial Court. No costs.