The interpretation of the term 'hearing' in Order XXII R.6, CPC and the importance of giving notice to all parties involved in interlocutory applications.

1. This is an application filed by the 18th respondent to transpose him as the supplemental appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The Second Appeal was preferred by the 2nd defendant alone in his capacity as the karanavan of the thavazhi of defendants 1 to 36. He died on 15-6-1959. Before his death, the arguments on the Second Appeal were fully heard and the case was reserved for judgment. But, the learned judge who heard the case did not pronounce the judgment, and has retired. The case was, therefore, reposted for hearing of arguments; and then the fact of the death of the sole appellant in the case was brought to the notice of the court. The 18th respondent, being the successor in office of karnavanship in the thavazhi of defendants 1 to 36, applied on 22-6-1960, by C.M.P. No. 2877 of 1960, to record him as the legal representative of the deceased appellant in the Second Appeal. There were 82 respondents in the Second Appeal. Therefore, the 18th respondent has impleaded respondents numbers 1 to 17 and 19 to 82 as respondents to the said application for recording him as the legal representative of the appellant. The same day, i. e., on 22-6-1960, he had also filed the instant application [CMP. No. 2878 of 1960] to transpose him as supplemental appellant in the Second Appeal.

3. On the application for recording the 18th respondent as legal representative [viz., CMP. No 2877 of 1960], it was ordered: "Notice to the proposed party".

As the 'proposed party' was the applicant himself, no notice was issued in the matter; and ultimately, on 17-8-1960 the application was "ordered" with the direction that the contemporaneous application for transposition (viz, CMP. No. 2878 of 1960), would be posted along with the Second Appeal for disposal. It is in these circumstances that this application has now come up for disposal before me.

4. Shri Achuthan Nambiar, the learned counsel for some of the respondents in this case, submitted that no notice of either of the above-said applications was given to him, even though he had entered appearance in the case long ago & was actively contesting the appeal at the prior hearing of arguments. It is a wholesome practice observed in judicial proceedings that, when any application is made in a pending case in which other parties have entered appearance by counsel, notice of such application be given at least to the parties who have entered appearance in the case, by service of copies of the application on the counsel or by the issue of a formal notice through the process of court. -It may be that an application may relate to a matter in which such other parties may not be interested; but the fact whether they are interested in the matter or not can be known only when they are intimated what the matter involved in the application is. The practice of moving interlocutory applications without notice at least to the parties who have entered appearance in the case has, therefore, to be deprecated. It will cause much anxiety to the parties and also tend to inconvenience and delay the disposal of the applications by the court. When the attention of the learned counsel for the applicant was called to the above aspects, he excused himself by saying that the non-issue of a copy of the application even to the other counsel appearing in the case came to be because the court ordered notice to be given to the 'proposed party' only, who in this case was the applicant himself and no other at all, and that no notice was ordered in CMP. No. 2878 of 1960 which was only directed to"be posted along with CMP. 2877 for final orders". I am sure the blame for not ordering notice on the applications cannot be thrown on the court. If the fact that the party proposed to be impleaded or recorded as the legal representative of the deceased sole appellant was the applicant himself, was brought to the notice of the learned judge, the order "notice to the proposed party" would not have been made on the application.

5.The learned