RSA No. 713 of 2007 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA No. 713 of 2007 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.4.2011. Gurcharan Singh and another .......Appellants Vs. Baljit Kaur and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate for the appellants-applicants. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.1. ..... SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Baljit Kaur had filed a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.5.1991. The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial court for recovery of the earnest money along with interest vide judgment and decree dated 14.8.1999. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1-Gurdarshan Singh preferred an appeal. Plaintiff preferred cross objections. Learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2002 while deciding the appeal filed by defendant No.1 and cross objections filed by the plaintiff, allowed the cross objections filed by the plaintiff and allowed the suit of the plaintiff for specific performance of agreement to sell. RSA No. 713 of 2007 (O&M) -2- Appeal filed by defendant No.1 was dismissed. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. In the appeal filed by Gurdarshan Singh-defendant No.1, the present appellants who were defendants No. 2 and 4 before the trial court were not impleaded as a party. The present appellants had not authorized their counsel in the trial court Mr. M.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate to file an appeal on their behalf. Thus, before the first appellate court Mr. M.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate was not a counsel on behalf of the present appellants but was the counsel of the appellant Gurdarshan Singh. Plaintiff filed the cross objections and impleaded the present plaintiffs as respondents. Admittedly, notice of the cross objections was not issued to the defendants but was issued to Mr. M.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate counsel for the appellant. Mr. M.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate was only the counsel for appellant- Gurdarshan Singh and was not representing the present plaintiffs in appeal. Thus, in fact no notice had been issued to the present appellants while deciding the appeal preferred by defendant No.1 and the cross objections filed by the plaintiff. The substantial question of law that arises in this case is whether the appellants were liable to be heard by the first appellate court before deciding the cross objections, preferred by the plaintiff. The answer to the said question of law is obviously in the affirmative. The present appellants were liable to be heard at the time of decision of the cross objections, filed by the plaintiff-Baljit Kaur. The record of the first appellate court has been perused by me as well as by the counsel for the parties. RSA No. 713 of 2007 (O&M) -3- Admittedly, no notice was issued to the present appellants before allowing the cross objections, filed by plaintiff-Baljit Kaur vide judgment and decree dated 7.8.2002. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court are set aside. The case is remanded back to the first appellate court and the said court is directed to decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. (SABINA) JUDGE April 27, 2011 Gurpreet