Krishnamoorthy v. Ganeshan – sllr 2004 volume 1 page 374

In the case between Krishnamoorthy (Plaintiff-Appellant, in the capacity related to the Temple’s administrative affairs) and Ganeshan (Defendant-Respondent), the court considered whether the District Court erred in issuing a notice of interim injunction without permitting the plaintiff to be heard. It was determined that procedural fairness, including the right to be heard before making such an order, is fundamental. The outcome reaffirmed the principle that parties must be given an opportunity to present submissions prior to any prejudicial order being made. Reliance was placed on section 34(2) of the Civil Procedure Code and relevant case law, underscoring that depriving a party of this right constitutes a material procedural defect and can cause prejudice. The District Court’s failure t