JUDGMENT 1. - Instant intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants (respondents No. 1 and 2 before the Single Bench) assailing the order of learned Single judge impugned dated 8.5.2013 essentially for the reason that the writ petition has been decided without affording a right of audience to them which is a settled principles of law, and their rights have been jeopardised by the order impugned. 2. Counsel for appellants submits that in the pending execution proceedings their objections filed under Order 21, Rule 97 C.P.C., before the executing Court finally came to be examined by the learned Single judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 3783/2012 vide order dated 1.4.2013 holding that the appellants have no locus standi to question and participate in the execution proceedings and the order of the executing Court came to be set aside and that has been assailed by the appellants by filing special leave to appeal before the Apex Court but because of vacation, the SLP could not be listed for admission. 3. Counsel for appellants further submits that right of hearing should have been afforded before the learned Single Judge so that they would have file written statement and to place relevant material on record to justify that what is being prayed for by the petitioner (respondent No. I herein) is not legally sustainable and in the absence of opportunity being afforded their rights have certainly been jeopardised by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 1.4.2013. 4. Counsel for respondents on the other hand while supporting the order of the learned Single judge submits that the order is very innocuous and the executing Court has been directed to provide assistance of police protection for executing the decree by the executing Court and there is no need to afford any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 5. 4. Counsel for respondents on the other hand while supporting the order of the learned Single judge submits that the order is very innocuous and the executing Court has been directed to provide assistance of police protection for executing the decree by the executing Court and there is no need to afford any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. 5. We are not inclined to examine merits of the matter but as regards submissions made by the appellants' counsel that the opportunity of hearing has not been afforded by the learned Single judge while passing the order impugned, we are convinced that before the final order came to be passed in the petition filed, ordinarily the appellants (respondents before Single Bench) are to be heard and where the rights of the parties are being defeated and jeopardised it is all the more necessary.for the learned Single Judge to afford opportunity of hearing to the respective parties before passing final order. Although we make it clear that as regards merits is concerned, we have not examined and it is open for the parties to address before the learned Single Judge.Consequently, the appeal succeeds and accordingly allowed. The order of the learned Single judge impugned dated. 8.5.2013 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge to examine on merits after of according opportunity of hearing to the parties. The parties are directed to appeal before the learned Single Judge on 29.5.2013.Special Appeal Allowed. *******