An appellate decree passed without serving notice violates natural justice and must be set aside.

The appellants were respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2023 before the 2nd Additional District Judge, Keshod.

The appellate court allowed that appeal and passed judgment and decree dated 6 August 2024 after recording that the process had been issued and served upon the appellants.

In the present second appeal, the appellants contended that they had never been served with notice of the regular civil appeal.

The bailiff’s report dated 28 August 2023 stated that the appellants had left the premises and that their fresh address could not be obtained; the notice was consequently returned unserved.

The private respondents and the State were unable to dispute the bailiff’s report or the fact of non-service.

Whether the appellate court passed the impugned judgment and order without serving notice of Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2023 upon the appellants and thereby violated the principles of natural justice?

The Court applied the fundamental principle of natural justice that a party whose rights may be affected by an appellate proceeding must receive effective notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse judgment is rendered.

An order passed ex parte on the erroneous assumption that notice was duly served, when the record demonstrates non-service, is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The bailiff’s report established that notice to the appellants had been returned unserved because their whereabouts could not be ascertained.

Despite this, the appellate court recorded that process had been issued and served, which the High Court found to be factually incorrect, perverse, and grossly erroneous.

Since the appellants had not received notice and were denied an opportunity to participate in the appeal, the appellate decision was effectively rendered ex parte and in violation of natural justice.

The defect went to the validity of the appellate adjudication, requiring the judgment and decree to be quashed and the appeal to be reheard after giving all parties an opportunity of hearing.

It quashed and set aside the impugned judgment and decree, restored Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2023 to the appellate court’s file, and directed the parties to remain present before that court on 17 September 2026.

The appellate court was directed to rehear and decide the appeal afresh, uninfluenced by its earlier judgment, with all rights and contentions kept open.

The civil application for stay was disposed of as having become unnecessary, and the second appeal was partly allowed with no order as to costs.