Sabina, J.:-Plaintiff Rajesh Kumar filed a suit for specific performance, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 4.9.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside by the Additional District Judge, Panipat vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.2008. Hence, the present appeal by defendants No.4 and 5.

2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-

“2. As per case of the plaintiff, defendant No.2 through her attorney Smt.Promila (defendant) entered into an agreement dated 12.4.2006 Ex.P-2 to sell her house to him as detailed and described in para No.1 of the plaint for a sum of Rs.2,22,500/-. The entire amount was paid at the time of execution of the agreement and it was agreed that he shall be entitled to get the sale deed executed and registered when it would be convenient to him. Further case of the plaintiff is that on 17.4.2006, defendants No.1 and 2 along with Sat Narain, husband of defendant No.2, came to his house and requested to purchase necessary stamp papers to get the sale deed executed and registered. On their asking, he purchased stamp papers worth Rs.8,900/- and got sale deed typed thereon from a petition writer, but when it was presented before the Sub Registrar for registration, defendants no. 1 and 2 refused to sign the same and later on, defendant No.2 sold the said house to defendants No.3 to 7 vide registered sale deed dated 9.5.2006 Ex.P1. With these averments, the plaintiff brought the present suit to seek a decree for specific performance of the agreement claiming that possession of the disputed house was already with him as it was handed over to him at the time of execution of the agreement.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants but they did not appear to contest the same, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in ex parte and the appeal filed by the plaintiff had been allowed by the Additional District Judge without issuing any notice to the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that as per amendment made by the State of Punjab in Order 41 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the service of the appeal on the appellants could be dispensed with.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. The substantial question of law involved in this case is “ Whether the appellants-defendant, who were ex parte in the trial Court were required to be served in appeal or whether their services could be dispensed with?”

7. The suit of the plaintiff for specific performance was dismissed by the trial Court in ex parte. The plaintiff went up in appeal. In appeal, the following order was passed by the learned Additional District Judge on 7.11.2007:-

“Notice to the respondents could not be issued as the appellant did not file the spare copies of grounds of appeal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondents were ex parte before learned trial Court, therefore, no notice is required to be given to them. I agree with the learned counsel for the appellant. As the respondents are already ex parte before learned trial Court, no notice to them is required to be given. Now, case to come up on 24.12.2007 for arguments.”

8. Thus, admittedly no notice was issued to the appellants-defendants in appeal by the learned Additional District Judge. The appeal was, however, allowed.

9. Order 41 rule 14 CPC along with Punjab amendments reads as under:-

“14.Publication and service of notice of day for hearing appeal- (1) Notice of the day fixed under rule 12 shall be affixed in the Appellate Court-house, and a like notice shall be sent by the Appellate Court to the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred, and shall be served o