DELAYED APPLICATION TO PURGE DEFAULT

-

DELAYED APPLICATION TO PURGE DEFAULT


                  In the Court of Appeal of the Democratic
            Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka

CA APPEAL No: 966/96F
DC Embilipitiya: 4272/RE


W M A Sunil Shantha,
                                                                             Pulkatiya, Pandura,
Panamura

Defendant--Appellant

Vs

Witharanage Mudalihamy,
                                                                                                                    Pulkatiya, Pandura,
Panamura
                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                   Plaintiff- Respondent

Before: A W A Salam J
Parties absent and unrepresented
Decided on:  03.11.2010.
---
A W Abdus Salam, J

This appeal arises from the order dated 28 February 1996. By the said order the learned district judge, refused the application of the defendant-appellant to set aside the judgment entered for default.
The facts that led to the present appeal are that the defendant-appellant having participated at the trial kept away from appearing in court at the subsequent stage of the trial. This led to the case being heard without the participation of the defendant- appellant. Thereafter, you need an application to have the judgment entered for default, set aside after 11 months. Quite apart from the delay in making the application, the learned district judge was also not satisfied with the explanation given for the default. The reason given by the defendant-appellant for not attending court was the promise held out by the plaintiff- respondent to withdraw the case. This in any event was not plausible reason for the defendant-appellant to keep away from Court.
In the circumstances, I do not see any merits in the appeal of the defendant-appellant.
Hence, the appeal stands dismissed without costs. 


Judge of the Court of Appeal

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more