JUDGMENT The appellants, who are defendants 1 to 6 before the trial court, have preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2015, passed in OS No. 68/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi. 2. Parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession of the suit properties with metes and bounds. The suit summons were not served on defendants 1 to 6, and hence notice to them was issued through substituted service by means of paper publication. In spite of this, they did not appear and remained absent, and accordingly, they were placed ex-parte. Despite the notice being served, defendant No. 7 also did not appear and was placed ex-parte. Thereafter, the matter was posted for the plaintiff’s evidence. Plaintiff No. 3 was examined as PW.1 and 13 documents were marked as Exhibits PW1 to PW13. Accordingly, the trial Court decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, defendants 1 to 6 are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the plaintiffs have shown the wrong address in the cause title and in the plaint. The address of the appellant/defendants 1 to 6 as shown in the cause title of this appeal is the correct address. It is further submitted that when the summons were issued to defendants 1 to 6, the bailiff submitted his report stating that, “upon inquiry, it was found that they had left the village”, and hence the summons were not served on them and returned to the Court as they are not residing at the present address. After returning the summons, the plaintiffs did not furnish the correct address of defendants 1 to 6. Thereafter, on 23.10.2013, plaintiffs filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC for the issuance of notice through paper publication to defendants 1 to 6, and the same was allowed by the trial Court. After returning the summons, the plaintiffs did not furnish the correct address of defendants 1 to 6. Thereafter, on 23.10.2013, plaintiffs filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of CPC for the issuance of notice through paper publication to defendants 1 to 6, and the same was allowed by the trial Court. He further submits that the defendants 1 to 6 were unaware of the ex-parte decree obtained behind their back, and only on 14.12.2016 the defendant No.7 (respondent No.5 herein) approached the appellant and showed him the petition copy and the appellant No.5 herein, after obtaining the same, approached the counsel on 15.12.2016 and ascertained about the said copy and was surprised to know that a suit for partition and separate possession and declaration claiming one-tenth share in the agricultural land in Survey No.61/2 measuring 6 acres situate at Kadni village was decreed in favour of plaintiffs and that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.7 was not binding on them. Further, it is submitted that the suit was decreed ex-parte without them being served with any notice and further on inquiry, he came to know that final decree proceedings in FDP No.7/2016 were filed seeking their share as per the decree. Immediately thereafter, he applied for the certified copy of the judgment and decree and approached the counsel for filing this appeal. Hence, on these grounds, he seeks to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and remand the matter to provide an opportunity to the appellant/defendants 1 to 6 to file their written statement and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. 5. Notice to respondents 1 to 5 is duly served and they remained absent and unrepresented. Hence, the arguments on behalf of respondents, is taken as nil. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, the following points would arise for consideration: (a) Whether the appellants/defendants 1 to 6 have made out a ground to set aside the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree and to remand the matter to the trial Court? (b) What order? My answer to the above points are: Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order. Regarding point No.1: 7. I have examined the material placed before this Court. (b) What order? My answer to the above points are: Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order. Regarding point No.1: 7. I have examined the material placed before this Court. The impugned ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law for the following reasons: (i) The appellants have given their names and addresses as mentioned in the cause-title of the memorandum of appeal. However, in the certified copy of the plaint furnished by the counsel for the appellants, the names and addresses of the appellant/defendants 1 to 6 shown in OS No.68 of 2013 differ from those mentioned in the memorandum of appeal. (ii) The report of the Bailiff/Process Server of the trial Court reveals that the summons issued to appellants/defendants 1 to 6 was unserved as the parties were not residing at the given address. Taking note of the said report, on April 24, 2013, the trial Court directed the plaintiffs to take necessary steps to furnish the correct address of defendants 1 to 6, and the case was posted to June 12, 2013. On June 12, 2013, the plaintiffs, having not taken steps, the case was further posted to July 9, 2013, for taking steps. On July 9, 2013, the plaintiffs again failed to take steps, and the case was adjourned to July 10, 2013. On July 10, 2013, the Court passed an order to take steps as a last chance, and the case was adjourned to August 28, 2013. On that day, as no representation was made on behalf of the plaintiffs, again the case was adjourned to October 23, 2013, as a last chance for taking steps. On October 23, 2013, the trial Court passed the following order: “Case called out. Advocate for plaintiff filed IA u/s V Rule 20 of CPC for issuance of substitute service of notice against defendants No.1. to 6 in the Kannada Daily News Paper, in the interest of justice. Heard and perused the case paper. I.A. is hereby allowed in the interest of justice. Advocate for plaintiff filed IA u/s V Rule 20 of CPC for issuance of substitute service of notice against defendants No.1. to 6 in the Kannada Daily News Paper, in the interest of justice. Heard and perused the case paper. I.A. is hereby allowed in the interest of justice. Issue paper publication as prayed for, if P.F. paid.” (iii) Though the trial Court adjourned the case from time to time from April 24, 2013, until October 23, 2013, to take steps, i.e., to furnish the correct address of Defendants 1 to 6, the plaintiffs did not take any steps to provide the correct address of defendants 1 to 6 as per the order dated April 24, 2013. Instead of taking necessary steps, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking substituted service of notice through paper publication on October 23, 2013, which was allowed by the trial Court on the same day without assigning any reasons. When the summons was returned because the defendants were not residing at the given address, the Court cannot infer that there was an attempt to avoid service. The Court should apply its mind or ascertain the correct present address of the defendant and call upon the plaintiff to provide the correct address, and then direct summons to be served at such a new address. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention the provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same reads as follows: “ORDER V- Issue and Service of Summons Rule 20. At this stage, it is appropriate to mention the provisions of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The same reads as follows: “ORDER V- Issue and Service of Summons Rule 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.” (iv) A perusal of the order passed on October 23, 2013 by the trial Court, makes it crystal clear that the trial Court did not assign any reason while allowing the application filed under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure and allowed the application mechanically, without application of mind, and such action is not sustainable under law. Substituted service of notice is permissible only if the Court records reasons after being fully satisfied that the service cannot be effected in an ordinary manner. It cannot be taken as a matter of right. (v) A bare perusal of Rule 20 of Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, makes it abundantly clear that the mode of substituted service can be resorted to only when the Court is satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the defendant is avoiding service or for any other reason summons cannot be served in the ordinary way. To put it in other words, personal service in the ordinary way is the rule, and substituted service is an exception. But the satisfaction of the Court is a pre-condition. (vi) In the case at hand, though the Court passed an order to furnish the correct address of defendants 1 to 6, the plaintiffs did not comply with the same. Instead, they filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the trial Court allowed the same mechanically. Hence, the order of the trial Court dated October 23, 2013, is not sustainable under law. 8. Instead, they filed an application under Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the trial Court allowed the same mechanically. Hence, the order of the trial Court dated October 23, 2013, is not sustainable under law. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to mention here the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 14-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was inserted by Act 104 of 1976, and came into force on February 1, 1977. The same reads as follows: “14A. Address for service of notice.—(1) Every pleading, when filed by a party, shall be accompanied by a statement in the prescribed form, signed as provided in rule 14, regarding the address of the party. (2) Such address may, from time to time, be changed by lodging in Court a form duly filled up and stating the new address of the party and accompanied by a verified petition. (3) The address furnished in the statement made under sub-rule (1) shall be called the “registered address” of the party, and shall, until duly changed as aforesaid, be deemed to be the address of the party for the purpose of service of all processes in the suit or in any appeal from any decree or order therein made and for the purpose of execution, and shall hold good, subject as aforesaid, for a period of two years after the final determination of the cause or matter. (4) Service of any process may be effected upon a party at his registered address in all respects as though such party resided thereat. (5) Where the registered address of a party is discovered by the Court to be incomplete. false or fictitious, the Court may, either on its own motion, or on the application of any party, order— (a) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a plaintiff, stay of the suit, or (b) in the case where such registered address was furnished by a defendant, his defence be struck out and he be placed in the same position as if he had not put up any defence. (6) Where a suit is stayed or a defence is struck out under sub-rule (5), the plaintiff or, as the case may be, the defendant may, after furnishing his true address, apply to the Court for an order to set aside the order of stay or, as the case may be, the order striking out the defence. (7) The Court, if satisfied that the party was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the true address at the proper time, shall set aside the order of stay or order striking out the defence, on such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit or defence, as the case may be. (8) Nothing in this rule shall prevent the Court from directing the service of a process at any other address, if, for any reason, it thinks fit to do so.” 9. The provisions of Rule 14-A of Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure are mandatory and entail disastrous consequences for the party failing to furnish a correct and proper address. If the plaintiff provides an incomplete, false, or fictitious address, the Court can stay further proceedings of the suit. Similarly, if the defendant fails to provide the proper and correct address, the defence may be struck off, placing the defendant in a position as if no defense had been put forth. Despite sufficient legislative provisions to enforce discipline, there appears to be a lack of will on the part of the lower Courts to enforce the rule by compelling parties, at the initial stage, to furnish a proper, correct, and registered address. 10. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has also made observations in this regard in the judgment in the case of YELLAPPA BY HIS LRs v. SMT. YASHODABAI, AIR 2004 KAR. 388 . The aforementioned judgment has been circulated by this Court to all the Judicial Officers in the State for strict compliance and observance, vide Circular No. LCA.I/169/2003 dated August 22, 2003. YASHODABAI, AIR 2004 KAR. 388 . The aforementioned judgment has been circulated by this Court to all the Judicial Officers in the State for strict compliance and observance, vide Circular No. LCA.I/169/2003 dated August 22, 2003. Even though the said judgment has been circulated to all the Courts, and the plaintiffs have not complied with the mandatory procedure of Order VI Rule 14-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the concerned Chief Ministerial Officer has not raised any objection in the order sheet while presenting the same before the concerned Presiding Officer, nor has the Presiding Officer insisted the plaintiffs to comply with the said provisions. 11. It is relevant to mention here the legal maxim “express unius est exclusio alterius,” meaning that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner and in no other. Following any other course is impermissible. This principle was enunciated by the Privy Council in the case of NAZIR AHMAD v. KING EMPEROR, AIR 1936 PC 253 wherein it is held that “where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” 12. It is also pertinent to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LIMITED v. KASHIRAM VERMA rendered in Civil Appeal No.5758 of 2012 disposed of on 16th March, 2023, wherein at paragraph 19 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “19. If any party approaches any authority for a relief, the first thing required to be mentioned is his complete address. Mentioning of address of the representative is secondary as someone may like to appear in person. Even in Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order VI Rule 14A provides that in every pleading, the parties are required to furnish their complete addresses and if there is any change it is also required to be informed.” 13. Since the trial Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions before passing the impugned order permitting the plaintiff to serve notice to defendants 1 to 6 through substituted service by way of paper publication, such an order is not sustainable in law. Since the trial Court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions before passing the impugned order permitting the plaintiff to serve notice to defendants 1 to 6 through substituted service by way of paper publication, such an order is not sustainable in law. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' failure to comply with the provisions of Order VI Rule 14-A of the Code of Civil Procedure is also one of the main reasons to interfere with the impugned ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, it is just and proper to remand the matter to the trial Court to provide an opportunity to the appellants/defendants 1 to 6 to file their written statement and to dispose of the matter in accordance with the law. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative. Regarding Point No.2: 14. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (a) The appeal is allowed; (b) The impugned judgment and decree dated April 30, 2015, passed in O.S.No.68/2013 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalaburagi, are hereby set aside, and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for disposal afresh. (c) The plaintiffs shall comply with the mandatory provisions of Order VI Rule 14-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (d) The trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 6 to file their written statement and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. (e) The trial Court is also directed to issue Court notice to the plaintiffs and other defendants, if any, and proceed with the case in accordance with the law. (f) The appellants are entitled to a refund of Court fees as contemplated under Section 64 of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1958. (g) The registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned Court as well as to the respondents by speed post. (h) The appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 6 are directed to appear before the trial Court on April 10, 2024, without seeking any notice from the trial Court.