1. The District Munsif reports that the allegations in the affidavit are substantially true. The evidence was taken by one Munsif who also heard the arguments of Vakils and reserved judgment. One of his successors read the evidence and, without hearing the parties or giving them notice, delivered his judgment. The first contention is that the Munsif may be entitled to deal with the evidence taken by his predecessor but he should have heard the Vakils on the evidence before pronouncing his judgment, and Jagramdas v. Narain Lal (1885) A.W.N. 285 is relied upon. I do not think this is necessary, under Order XVIII, Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. The next contention is that under Order XX, Rule 1, notice of the date of pronouncing the judgment should have been given. This contention is valid and its omission is a serious irregularity, if not an illegality. It is unnecessary to consider whether, if it is only an irregularity, this Court should interfere with the decree on that account only, because the Munsif who decided the case was not the same parson who heard the Pleaders and it is impossible to say what the result would be if the case had been argued. The case seems to be one in which the Pleaders should have been heard. I, therefore, set aside the decree, direct the Munsif to restore the cases to his file and deal with them according to law with reference to the above observations. The parties will bear their own costs in this Court. The costs in the lower Court will be dealt with in the final decree.