Judgment P.K.Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff/decree-holder/petitioner (petitioner, in short) and the learned Counsel for the defendants/judgment debtors/opp. parties (opp. parties, in short). 2. This petition is directed against the impugned order dated 31.3.99 reported by the learned Subordinate Judge, 4th Court, Hazaribagh, in Execution Case No. 5 of 1997, by which a petition filed by the opp. parties was decided on that very date for recall of the order of attachment of Savings Bank A/c No. 7289 and Fixed Deposit A/c No. 20/21 dated 2.10.94, which were attached earlier under orders of the learned lower Court to facilitate due satisfaction of the Money Decree that was passed in the connected Money Suit No. 7/91. 3. It may be mentioned that the opp. parties axe the office-bearers of Jublee College, Bhurkundain the district of Hazaribagh. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has attacked the impugned order on two grounds. The first ground is that this order was passed on the same day on which this application was filed by the opp. parties without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to oppose the prayer or to file rejoinder against that. On the other hand, it was pointed out that in the order itself, it has been mentioned that the Counsel for the petitioner had refused to receive the copy of the petition of the opp. parties. Against that the learned Counsel for the petitioner points out Annexure-6, which is a letter dated 4.4.1999 written by Ms. Kavita Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner, addressed to the petitioner informing him that she was out of station from 3.3.1999 till 2.4.1999 and learnt on her return that the learned Subordinate Judge had released the attachment of bank accounts of the judgment-debtor by order dated 31.3.1999, though that was not the date fixed in the case. She also informed that a petition was filed by the opp. parties on that very day with the endorsement thereon that the copy of the petition was refused to be taken (on behalf of the petitioner) though, because of her absence, there could not have been any occasion for her to refuse to receive the copy. She also informed that a petition was filed by the opp. parties on that very day with the endorsement thereon that the copy of the petition was refused to be taken (on behalf of the petitioner) though, because of her absence, there could not have been any occasion for her to refuse to receive the copy. The second point taken by the learned Counsel, which is supported by the copies of different order-sheets filed, is that on 17.3.1999, this case was adjourned to 16.4.1999 for execution of the warrant of attachment but, in between the dates, the opp. parties had appeared with the application, which was heard and allowed on the same date not fixed in the case. This fact has also not been denied by the learned Counsel for the opp. parties. 5. Justifying the impugned order passed on the same day. the learned Counsel for the opp. parties has argued that by the attachment, the entire transaction of the College concerned was stopped and a grim situation would have been created if the necessary expenses of running the College were withheld and salaries to the teaching and non-teaching staff were not paid, hence the learned lower Court rightly disposed of the petition on the same day, keeping in view the urgency. 6. This argument cannot be accepted. Whether in deciding a suit, or passing an interim order, if the other party is present in the suit, that party has to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before the judgment or order is recorded. If a suit is adjourned to a date, then the suit, or any interlocutory matter arising in between the dates should ordinarily be put up for hearing on the next date fixed of which the order side has notice. However, if any such matter is brought before the Court, which, in view of the urgency of the matter needs immediate attention or order of the Court and in the opinion of the Court, it may not be proper to postpone bearing of such matter then even in such exceptional circumstance, the Court should avoid deciding that matter unless it is satisfied that opp. parties have been made aware of the petition and has been given a reasonable opportunity to answer that. parties have been made aware of the petition and has been given a reasonable opportunity to answer that. Mere inscription on the petition hide by a party that the representative of the other side had refused to accept the copy of the petition should not be sufficient because, as experience has shown, such remarks more often than not are given in order to expedite the hearing. Even in such circumstances, if the Court feels inclined to hear the matter on a date which is not fixed in the case the Court can take care of calling for the learned Counsel for the other side in the Court so that the other side might be given an opportunity of being heard. If even such endeavour fails and the Court feels that, in view of given circumstances, an order is imminently required and the matter cannot await, it should pass only interim order to meet the exigencies of the situation postponing final disposal of the matter to the date fixed when the other side or its Counsel may get notice of the matter. 7. To me. it appears that the learned Subordinate Judge had shown haste in disposing of the petition on a date which was not even fixed in the case, without giving appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in that regard. This is against natural justice and is not proper. 8. Therefore, I do not find that the impugned order can be sustained. 9. In the result, this petition is allowed and the order dated 31.3.1999 is hereby set aside, but without costs. 10. The learned lower Court is directed to fix a date for hearing the petition of the opp. parties (judgment-debtors) dated 31.3.1999 and to pass order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Needless to say that both the parties would help the Court in not seeking any adjournment, and in quick disposal of the matter in hand.