Judgment 1. The plaintiffs preferred the second appeal before this Court. 2. The plaintiffs filed the suit to the effect that the defendants be permanently injuncted from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over plot No. 112. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiffs. 3. The trial court decreed the suit against defendants 1 and 2. The trial court passed the judgment on 29th July, 1968 and a decree was prepared on 22-8-1968. Against the decree of the trial court defendant No. 1 Rameshwar Mali preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court on 2-9-1968, defendant No. 2 did not prefer any appeal. However he was added as respondent in the appeal. 4. In the present case, the lower appellate court added Parsadi Mali, defendant No. 2 in the category of the respondent under O.41, R.20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is relevant to quote O.41, R.20 which runs as follows: "Where it appears to the Court at the hearing that any person who was a party to the suit in the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred but who has not been made a party to the appeal, is interested in the result of the appeal, the Court may adjourn the hearing to a future day to be fixed by the Court and direct that such person be made a respondent." Order 41, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the appellate court to add any person as a respondent who was a party to the suit and who has not been made a party to the appeal and is interested in the result of the suit. If the lower appellate court adds any such person as respondent, then in that case the court will adjourn the hearing of the appeal to a future day, and, in the meantime, the lower appellate court shall serve a notice to the added respondent for appearing at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 5 In the present case, the lower appellate court added Parsadi Mali at the time of delivering the judgment. The lower appellate court did not adjourn the hearing to a future date. The lower appellate Court also did not issue a notice in Form No. VII of Appendix G of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. 5 In the present case, the lower appellate court added Parsadi Mali at the time of delivering the judgment. The lower appellate court did not adjourn the hearing to a future date. The lower appellate Court also did not issue a notice in Form No. VII of Appendix G of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. In the present case, Parsadi Mali was defendant No. 2 before the trial court. He was interested in the result of the suit as a decree was passed against Parsadi Mali as well. Hence, he was an interested party. The lower appellate court was justified in adding Parsadi Mali as a respondent. Thereafter, the lower appellate court ought to have adjourned the hearing to a future day, and, in the meantime the lower appellate court ought to have issued a notice to the respondent in Form No. VII of Appendix G of the Code of Civil Procedure for his appearance on the date of hearing. 7. In view of the fact that the lower appellate court erred in law in not following the procedure as laid down by O. 41, R. 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure after adding Parsadi Mali as a party, I remand the matter to the lower appellate court for fresh hearing in accordance with law after serving a notice on him. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside, and, the case is sent back to it for fresh hearing in accordance with law. The parties will bear their own costs.