JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The Appellants before us are Respondents in Money Appeal No. 36/28 of 1952. The learned subordinate Judge pronounced the judgment in that appeal on 16th August, 1952 after hearing the court-guardian, on behalf of the minor Respondents. The Appellants- before us were declared ex-parte on 25-7-52 by the District Judge before whom the appeal was then pending. It is found by the learned Subordinate Judge that the Appellants refused to receive notices sent through Court and also by registered post and on that ground the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. In appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the appeal which was before the District Judge was transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge on 4th of August, 1952 and that no notice to this effect was sent to the Respondents. He cites a Full Bench decision of the Patna High Court reported in the case of Ram Sukhal Pathak v. Maharajah Kesho Prasad Singh in support of his contention that notice of transfer should go to the Respondents. In this case the Respondents were declared ex-parte before the order of transfer of the appeal was made, and the notice of the transfer need not be issued to the Respondents who are already ex-parte in the appeal. I do not think the decision cited has application to the facts of this case. There is no prejudice also caused to the Respondents inasmuch as the appeal was heard by the learned Subordinate Judge and the case of the Respondents was represented by the Court-guardian, appearing for the minor Respondents. I see no ground to interfere with the order of the learned Subordinate Judge. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Panigrahi, C.J. 2. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed