A court must ensure that any interim orders affecting parties' rights are made only after providing an opportunity for all concerned parties to be heard, reinforcing the principle of fair hearing.

JUDGMENT :

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

All these intracourt appeals have been filed by third parties who are said to have been elected as office bearers in various posts in the election conducted by the Administrator appointed by this Court in the previous legal proceedings. All the appellants herein have challenged the impugned order, dated 26.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge during the vacation sitting, restraining the Administrator from conducting the election on 13.12.2025, 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025 and on any subsequent dates pursuant to the notice. This Court had granted leave on 09.01.2026 to file appeals by third parties on the ground that all the appellants were elected as office bearers in various capacities in the election conducted by the Administrator who was appointed by this court in the earlier proceedings. In pursuance of the leave granted by this court, all the appeals are before this court.

2.It is the grievance of all the appellants that though their applications to implead in the main suit are pending, the same has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge. However, the orders have been passed and the learned Single Judge has in fact decided the rights of the parties and conclusively decided the issue as against the appellants herein without hearing them. Therefore, according to them, though it is an interim order, the same shall be construed as a judgment and therefore, the intra court appeals are maintainable under Clause 15 of Letters Patent .

3.The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the learned Single Judge has granted only an ad interim injunction and posted the matter after four weeks. Therefore, it is his contention that the appellants can canvass their grievance before the learned Single Judge and since the interim order alone is challenged, the appeals are not maintainable before this Court. It is his further contention that the present suit, under which interim orders came to be passed, are against the administrator from conducting election of the CSI Thoothukudi Nazareth Diocese scheduled to be held on 13.12.2025, 30.12.2025 and 31.12.2025 and on any subsequent dates. That suit has been filed mainly on the ground that the suit in C.S.No.225 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn but the administrator was allowed to continue to discharge his functions. As against the order of learned Single Judge, O.S.A.No.270 of 2025 has been filed before the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Hon’ble Division Bench while confirming the order of the learned single judge permitting the withdrawal of the suit, however set aside the order of the learned single judge continuing the administrator appointed by this court. The said order was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.53533 / 2025, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court did not interfere with the impugned order. While disposing of the SLP vide order dated 22.09.2025, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

‘We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners/persons elected to work out their rights in the manner known to law. Liberty is also given to the petitioners to seek necessary relief for the continuation of the administrator appointed by the High Court.’

4.With the above observation, the SLP filed by the third parties who were said to have been elected in the election conducted by the administrator, was disposed of. Hence, it is the contention of the learned senio