https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307403 Where a transfer rule requires notice to the parties on transfer of a suit and notice of the transferee court date, strict compliance is mandatory. Because the appellant was not represented by the counsel who appeared for the other defendants and was not served with notice of transfer or subsequent hearing dates, the ex parte decree could not stand. The Court held that the use of the word "parties" imposed a direct service obligation, not limited to represented or "interested" parties, and the absence of service furnished sufficient ground to set aside the decree. Rejection of the Order IX Rule 13 application was therefore unsustainable. en-us Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:55:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307403 Where a transfer rule requires notice to the parties on transfer of a suit and notice of the transferee court date, strict compliance is mandatory. Because the appellant was not represented by the counsel who appeared for the other defendants and was not served with notice of transfer or subsequent hearing dates, the ex parte decree could not stand. The Court held that the use of the word "parties" imposed a direct service obligation, not limited to represented or "interested" parties, and the absence of service furnished sufficient ground to set aside the decree. Rejection of the Order IX Rule 13 application was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307403