2009 INSC 1812
                                    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                                  Kanth Sri

                                                      Vs.

                                                    Munna

                                           C.A.No.8189 of 2009

                           (Tarun Chatterjee and Surinder Singh Nijjar JJ.)

                                                  09.12.2009

                                                   ORDER

Leave granted.

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This appeal can be disposed of on a very short question. The second appeal was filed by
the present respondents before the High Court challenging the judgment and decree of the
Appellate Court, which had granted a decree for specific performance of contract for sale. By
the impugned order, the High Court had reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and
allowed the second appeal. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court by
the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. It appears from the said judgment that the
High Court had proceeded to dispose of the second appeal in the absence of any learned
counsel appearing for the respondents. The judgment of the High Court shows:

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None argued for the respondents. Shri K.N.
Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that he has no instructions to argue the
appeal.

4. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that Shri K.N.
Mishra could not appear for the present respondents because he had not filed vakalatnama on
behalf of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased respondent. In fact, he had filed
vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent, who subsequently died. That being the position, it
is now admitted position that the second appeal was allowed without giving any opportunity
of hearing to the respondents therein. We are, therefore, of the view that an opportunity
should be given to these respondents to contest the second appeal in the High Court. The
impugned order is, therefore, set aside, the appeal is restored to its original file and the matter
is remanded back to the High Court for fresh disposal of the Second Appeal No.1242 of
1980, after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and passing a reasoned judgment in
accordance with law.

1  SpotLaw
5. Both sides agreed that no further notice need to be sent to the respondents regarding
fixation of a date of hearing of the second appeal by the High Court. That being the position,
we request the High Court to decidethe appeal after remand within a period of three months
from the date of supply of a copy of this order to it. The impugned order is accordingly set
aside. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.

2  SpotLaw