Vanik Incorporation Ltd. v. Jayasekara – sllr 1997 volume 2 page 365

In the case between Vanik Incorporation Ltd. and Jayasekara, the court considered whether the enjoining order granted by the Additional District Judge should be invalidated on grounds that the defendant-petitioner’s counsel was not permitted to be heard before the order was issued. The court determined that although procedural irregularities were present, including the District Court acting ex parte and not affording a hearing to the defendant-petitioner’s counsel, no substantive prejudice resulted. The court reaffirmed that revisionary relief is available when a fundamental procedural rule has been violated causing a miscarriage of justice, referencing section 666 of the Civil Procedure Code and relevant precedents such as Perera v. Muthalib, Attorney-General v. Podi Singho, and Finnegen