Effective notice to legal heirs is mandatory before substitution; ex parte decree cannot stand without opportunity to contest.

Service of notice on a legal representative sought to be impleaded in substitution of a deceased defendant is an essential safeguard, not a mere formality. Where the record did not show effective service and the alleged refusal could not safely be attributed to the heir, the case was treated as one of non-service rather than a minor irregularity. Because the heir's share in the deceased's estate could be affected by execution of the decree, denial of notice and opportunity to contest caused prejudice. The ex parte decree therefore could not be sustained against the heir, and setting it aside was proper.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, a legal heir sought to be impleaded in substitution of the deceased defendant, was duly served with notice of the substitution application and whether the ex parte decree could be sustained against him despite such non-service.

Analysis: When a proposed legal representative is brought on record, service of notice upon that person is not a mere formality but an essential requirement. The record showed that the appellant was working outside the place to which the notice was sent, and there was no definite finding that he was actually served. The endorsement of refusal could not safely be attributed to him. In these circumstances, the case was one of non-service and not a mere irregularity in service. Since the appellant's share in his deceased father's estate would be affected by execution of the decree, denial of notice and of an opportunity to contest caused prejudice. The failure to decide the issues relating to the alleged discharge of the guarantor further reinforced the prejudice.

Conclusion: The appellant was not duly served with notice of substitution, and the ex parte decree could not stand against him. The application to set aside the decree was rightly allowable.

Ratio Decidendi: A decree passed against a legal heir whose impleadment was sought without effective service of substitution notice, and whose share in the estate is liable to be affected, cannot be sustained without affording that heir an opportunity of contesting the suit.

---