N. H. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the original defendant of the regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 1974 decided by the Civil Judge (J. D.) Palanpur in his favour and against the original plaintiffs but the decree of the trial Court came to be reversed by the learned Assistant Judge at Palanpur in the respondents Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1975 in the District Court there. Being aggrieved by the said decree of reversal passed by the learned appellate Judge the original defendant the respondent in the District Court has filed the present second appeal. ( 2 ) ). After the appeal was admitted by the District Court a notice Exhibit 6 on the record of the appellate Court came to be issued calling upon the respondent to appear before the Court on 30-9-75 on which day the appellant herein did appear. Now unfortunately the District Court as the rojnama shows did not adjourn the matter but on 10-11-75 an order was made that the record and proceedings be called for but no date was notified even in the rojnama about the hearing of the appeal on some other day. After about two years lapse that is on 27-7-77 the appeal happened to be called out before the learned Assistant Judge one Mr. B. P. Shah there the appellant herein the respondent in the District Court obviously could not have known that one fine morning his matter would be called out in the District Court and as the respondent was not present the matter was heard ex-parte presumably under Order 41 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is this ex-parte decree of the District Court allowing the appeal that is assailed by Miss K. M. Shah before me in this second appeal. ( 3 ) I have personally perused the record with the assistance of both the lady advocates appearing for the respective parties and I find that after 30-9-75 there is no endorsement of the adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. Only rojnama that is to be found is dated 10 speaking of the record of the trial court to be called for again with no further date of hearing fixed. The rojnama then records what happened after 27-7-77 which I have already referred to above. Only rojnama that is to be found is dated 10 speaking of the record of the trial court to be called for again with no further date of hearing fixed. The rojnama then records what happened after 27-7-77 which I have already referred to above. It is the grievance of the appellant that the appeal in the District Court in above view of the matter should be treated as put on the dormant file and if the Court suddenly fixed up a date without any reference to the earlier date of hearing a notice was required to be issued to the respondent particularly when he had appeared personally and was not represented by any advocate practicing in that Court. It is this clear error of law committed by the learned appellate Judge that goes to the root of the matter and vitiates the appellate judgment and decree. ( 4 ) MISS V. P. Shah however urged that the Courts duty is over the moment the first notice contemplated by Order 41 Rule 12 is given which in this case is given and in her submission this having been done there was no further duty cast on the Court to issue a fresh notice. Order 41 Rule 12 is reproduced below :-"12 (1) Unless the appellate court dismisses the appeal under rule 11 it shall fix a day for hearing the appeal; (2)Such day shall be fixed with reference to the current business of the court the place of residence of the respondent and the time necessary for the service of the notice of appeal so as to allow the respondent sufficient time to appear and answer the appeal on such day. "order 41 Rule 14 is also relevant for our purpose and it is also reproduced below :"14 (1) Notice of the day fixed under rule 12 shall be affixed in the appellate court-house and a like notice shall be sent by the appellate court to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred and shall be served on the respondent or on his pleader in the appellate court in the manner provided for the service on a defendant of a summons to appear and answer; and all the provisions applicable to such summons and to proceedings with reference to the service thereof shall apply to the service of such notice. APPELLATE court may itself cause notice to be served; (2) Instead of sending the notice to the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred the appellate amount may itself cause the notice to be served on the respondent or his pleader under the provisions above referred to. (3) The notice to be served on the respondent shall be accompanied by a copy of the memorandum of appeal; (4) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-rule (1) it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the appellate court unless he has appeared and filed an address for the service in the court of first instance or has appeared in the appeal; (5) Nothing in sub-rule (4) shall bar the respondent referred to in the appeal from defending it. Miss V. P. Shah obviously relies on this latter provision for the support of her view that once a notice under Order 41 Rule 19 of the C. P. C. is served no further notice is required to be given. In my view both provisions are to be read conjointly and not severally. Rule 14 in my view deals with the notice fixing the date of hearing of appeal and it provides for an additional requirement of law because the publication and service of notice of date for hearing of the appeal is another provision. On the contrary Rule 14 specifically provides and it is to be so interpreted by a reasonable construction that it has reference to the first notice because the provisions of Rule 14 mention a reference to the notice of the day fixed under Rule 12 which is to be affixed in the appellate Court house and there is further provision that a like notice has to be sent by the appellate Court to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred-and is to be served on the respondent or his pleader in the appellate Court in the manner provided for the service on a defendant of a summons to appear and answer. So if these two provisions are read conjointly it would show that Exhibit 6 is not such a notice. The situation here is otherwise. So if these two provisions are read conjointly it would show that Exhibit 6 is not such a notice. The situation here is otherwise. Had the matter been adjourned to some other day after 30 9-75 1 would have even presumed that the respondent must have been apprised of it but the Courts record is silent about it. No respondent is expected to knock the doors of the Court where his appeal is pending every day in the morning till the appeal is concluded. Law cannot be that much unreasonable and fantastic. If the case is put on the sine die file for any reasons whatsoever as it appears to be the case here it was the bounden duty of the Court as the basic principle of audi alteram partem requires that a fresh notice be issued Ordinarily the respondents engage their advocates and when the matters are taken up say after some time without there being no dates of adjournment from one day to another day they being advocates on the record can be presumed to have notice of those subsequent fixing of the date of hearing of the appeal and practical difficulties do not arise in case where the respondents are represented by the advocates. If that is not done it is to be assumed as a matter of necessary corollary that the hearing took place on 27 without any notice of appeal given to the other side. This is not a case of over-riding the provisions of law which are silent to deal with situations like the one that has occurred here Acting on the principle that no order has to be passed behind the back of any one and no order should be passed against a person who is likely to be adversely affected without being given an opportunity of being heard I hold that there is grave procedural error committed by the learned Judge violating the principles of natural justice and that goes to the root of the matter. ( 5 ) ). ( 5 ) ). The result is that the appeal is required to be allowed with no order as to costs by quashing the appellate judgment and decree and the regular civil Appeal no 81 of 1975 in the District Court Banaskantha at Palanpur shall be readmitted on the file of that court and will be disposed of in accordance with law after serving both the sides of the same. .