An appellate court cannot decide an appeal on merits without affording the parties a hearing.

The respondents filed an application at Exhibit-17 before the first appellate court, challenging its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. While hearing that application, the appellate court also decided the appeal on its merits, although the parties had not addressed arguments on the merits

The appellants then sought recall or review of the judgment through an application at Exhibit-33; the appellate court rejected it on the ground that a review application could be filed

In the second appeal, the respondents did not dispute that the appeal had been decided without a hearing on its merits and agreed that the matter could be remanded

1. Whether the first appellate court erred by deciding the appeal without hearing the parties on its merits after hearing arguments on the Exhibit-17 maintainability application

2. Whether the first appellate court erred in rejecting the Exhibit-33 application seeking recall or review of its judgment, thereby violating the principles of natural justice

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, including the requirement that parties receive a fair opportunity to present their case before a decision is made on the merits.

It held that where parties have been heard only on a preliminary jurisdictional application, the appeal cannot also be decided on its merits without giving them an opportunity to address those merits

The parties agreed that the arguments before the appellate court concerned only Exhibit-17, yet the court proceeded to decide the entire appeal without hearing submissions on its merits

In those circumstances, the judgment and decree violated natural justice.

The appellate court should also have considered the substance of the appellants’ Exhibit-33 request for recall rather than rejecting it on the technical ground that a review application could be filed

set aside the appellate judgment and decree dated 8 May 2026, and restored Regular Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2022 to the appellate court

The Exhibit-17 application was also restored. The appellate court was requested to decide that application on its merits and, if it assumed jurisdiction, proceed to hear and decide the appeal after giving both sides an opportunity to be heard

The second appeal was partly allowed; the stay application was disposed of as no longer surviving, with no order as to costs