Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) In this case counter and rejoinder-affidavits have already been filed. As desired by the Counsel for the parties, this petition is decided finally at this stage. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 12.10.1993 and 3.8.1996. It appears that Respondent. No. 3 filed a suit for ejectment and recovery of rent on the ground of default pleading that it was on 2.1.1989 a notice of demand was issued demanding the rent and asking the petitioner to vacate the building in question which was severed upon the petitioner. The petitioner who was the tenant of the building in question gave a reply of the said notice. On receipt of the notices from the trial Court, petitioner put in appearance before the trial Court. Thereafter, several dates were fixed but on one ground or the other, case could not be taken up for hearing. On 15.1.1990 the hearing of the case was adjourned to 27.2.1990. Even on the said date Counsel for the petitioner took adjournment. In the (sic) it was on 7.2.1991, the case was transferred from the Court of JSCC to the Court of Additional JSCC by the District Judge. The record of the case was received in the transferee Court on 11.10.1991. Since, no body turned up, the trial Court proceeded ex-parte and suit was decreed on 16.2.1991. As soon as the petitioner came to know about the ex pane decree he applied for setting aside the said decree under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC, on 9.9.1991. The said application was objected to an oppose by the contesting respondent and ultimately was dismissed by the trial Court on 12.10.1993. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision before the Court below contending that he was not intimated about the transfer of the case from the Court of JSCC to the Court of Additional JSCC. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 3.8.1996, hence the present petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing at any stage. The notices issued by the Court of JSCC were never served upon him. The revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed on 3.8.1996, hence the present petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently urged that the petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing at any stage. The notices issued by the Court of JSCC were never served upon him. He was also not given any notice at the time when the suit was transferred from the Court of SCC to the Court of Addition al JSCC. Even the transferee Court did not issue any notice to the petitioner regarding the date fixed by the said Court for hearing. The Courts below have acted illegally in dismissing the application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex pane decree and the Revisional Court also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner illegally. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent supported the validity of the impugned order. It was urged that, under the facts and circumstances of the case, it was not necessary to issue notice to the petitioner at the time of transfer of the case or by the transferee Court, as petitioner was not participating in the proceedings, therefore, the Court below were right in decreeing the suit, dismissing the application and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. (4) I have heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the record. Admittedly, initially the suit was filed in the Court of JSCC, but it was on 7.2.1991 that the suit was transferred to the Court of Additional JSCC by the District Judged in exercise of power under Section 24 of CPC. At the time of transfer admittedly notice was not issued to the petitioner. Rule 89 of (sic) as under:- "89A. (1) When a case i.e. a suit, appeal or other proceedings in which a date for attendance of a party or the parties in a particular Court has been fixed, is transferred from the Court to another, the former Court shall record the order of transfer in the order sheet and get it signed by Counsel of the party or parties if any party is un-represented information shall be sent to registered address. The case shall be called out by the other Court on the date already fixed by the transferring Court and the presence of the parties noted. The case shall be called out by the other Court on the date already fixed by the transferring Court and the presence of the parties noted. (2) A note to the effect that a party or the parties nave been informed in accordance with sub-rule (1), shall be made on the record by the transferring Court. (3) Where cases are transferred in a large number, the Court from which they are transferred shall, besides following the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1), draw up a list mentioning in it the numbers and years of the case and the names of the parties and their Counsel, and shall cause one copy of it to be posted on the notice board of the local bar association for information of the members of the bar and another copy to be posted on the notice-board of the Court for information of the general public. It shall also send to the other Court alongwith the records of the transferred case, a copy of the list (or relevant extract of it), the other Court shall post it on its own notice board. If the other Court is situated in a different place in which there is another bar association, an extra copy of the list shall be sent to it for being posted on the notice board of the bar association. (4) The Court to which cases are transferred shall not proceed without satisfying itself that the parties or their Counsel, as the case may be, have been informed of the transfer. (5) In sub-rules (1) to (4) transfer includes withdrawal of a case." (5) In view of the aforesaid provisions, before transfer, in case date is fixed by the District Judge, the intimation is to be given to the Counsel for the parties, if they are represented otherwise transferee Court is required to issue notice to the parties regarding the date fixed for hearing. In the present case neither any notice was issued by the District Judge at the time of transfer of the case nor notice was issued by the transferee Court of the petitioner as is evident from the order sheet which has been filed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner alongwith the Supplementary affidavit. Therefore, the petitioner could not get notice or knowledge of the proceedings in the Court of Additional JSCC. Therefore, the petitioner could not get notice or knowledge of the proceedings in the Court of Additional JSCC. The Court below has committed error which is apparent on the face of record in upholding the validity of the order passed by the trial Court. The impugned orders, in view of the facts stated above, are wholly illegal and are liable to be quashed. (6) The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 12.10.1993 and 3.8.1996 are hereby quashed. The case is sent back to the trial Court with the direction that the suit which was filed in the year 1989, shall be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this judgment/order is produced before the trial Court after following procedure prescribed for the same. No orders as to costs. Petition allowed.