The High Court of Kerala has reaffirmed that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in civil litigation, particularly when interim injunctions are made absolute. This judgment clarifies that courts cannot bypass the right to be heard, even in urgent matters, and must afford parties a meaningful opportunity to present their case before finalizing interim relief.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a partition suit concerning ancestral property among siblings. The plaintiffs, K. Mahalinga Bhat and K. Gopalakrishna Bhat, filed an application seeking an interim injunction to restrain the disbursal of funds held in bank accounts jointly owned by the parties. These accounts were the subject of the partition claim, and the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants intended to withdraw and dissipate the funds.
Procedural History
The case progressed through the following stages:
- 2024: Original suit filed as O.S. No. 21 of 2024 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hosdurg
- Early 2024: Ad-interim injunction granted ex parte based on plaintiff’s affidavit
- January 2024: Application I.A. No. 3/2024 for making injunction absolute was posted for hearing
- No appearance: Defendants failed to appear on the hearing date, citing lack of notice
- Court action: The trial court made the injunction absolute without recording reasons or considering the defendants’ potential objections
- 2025: Defendants filed First Appeal No. 130 of 2025 challenging the absolute injunction
Relief Sought
The appellants sought to set aside the absolute injunction order and requested that the application be re-opened for a full hearing where both sides could present evidence and arguments.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an interim injunction can be made absolute without affording the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to be heard, even if they were absent on the hearing date.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants contended that the trial court violated the principle of natural justice by making the injunction absolute without examining their absence or granting them an opportunity to explain. They relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that procedural irregularities that prejudice substantive rights cannot be condoned. They emphasized that non-appearance does not equate to waiver of rights, especially where notice was not properly served.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents argued that the appellants had ample opportunity to appear and that their absence was deliberate. They cited K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India to assert that courts must act swiftly to preserve subject matter in partition suits. They maintained that the trial court’s action was justified to prevent irreparable loss of assets.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of interim injunctions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and emphasized that such orders are provisional and require a balanced assessment of prima facie case, irreparable injury, and balance of convenience. Crucially, the Court held that even when a party fails to appear, the court must not assume waiver without inquiry.
"The right to be heard is not a mere formality; it is the very soul of adjudication. A court cannot, under the guise of expediency, extinguish a party’s right to contest an order that substantially affects their property rights."
The Court distinguished between procedural default and substantive waiver. It noted that the trial court had not recorded any finding on whether notice was properly served or whether the appellants had a legitimate reason for non-appearance. The absolute order, therefore, lacked the foundational reasoning required under Section 115 CPC and violated the doctrine of audi alteram partem.
The Court further observed that the injunction restrained access to bank accounts held by multiple parties, including a third-party bank, making the order particularly consequential. The trial court’s failure to consider the bank’s position or the appellants’ potential counter-evidence rendered the order procedurally defective.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded in part. The Court held that making an interim injunction absolute without a hearing violates natural justice. The injunction was maintained, but the application was ordered to be re-opened for a full hearing with proper notice to all parties.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Hearing Is Mandatory, Even for Absent Parties
- Practitioners must now argue that non-appearance does not equate to consent to finalization of interim orders
- Courts must record reasons for accepting absence as waiver or grant adjournment if absence is unexplained
- Failure to do so renders the order liable to be set aside on appeal
Interim Orders in Partition Suits Require Extra Caution
- Partition suits involve co-owners with equal rights; unilateral restraint of assets risks irreparable harm
- Banks named as parties must be given notice before injunctions are imposed on their accounts
- Courts must balance urgency with procedural fairness - expediency cannot override due process
Notice Is Not a Formality
- Service of notice must be documented and verifiable
- Courts cannot rely on presumed knowledge; actual service or constructive notice must be established
- In cases involving NRI parties, special care must be taken to ensure notice reaches them through valid channels
