Posts

Prescription Ordinance s.10: Claims under Laesio Enormis must be raised within 3 years; delay extinguishes right. Laesio Enormis (Roman-Dutch Law): Remedy for injustice where property sold for less than half value without knowledge of true worth. Not applicable if seller knew value or never intended sale. Subsequent Purchasers: The Doctrine does not operate against bona fide transferees; it is limited only to original parties. Equity: Law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep over rights.

-
Case Title: Ahangama Vithanage Mala Mangalika Abayagunasekera v. Anestus Perera alias Saman Perera & Others Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka Judges: S. Thurairaja P.C. J., Menaka Wijesundera J., Sampath B. Abayakoon J. Date: 04 September 2025 -  Counsel: Navin Marapana, P.C. with Uchitha Wickremesinghe and Saumya Hettiarachchi for Plaintiff–Appellant–Appellant; Uditha Egalahewa, P.C. for Substituted Defendants–Respondents–Respondents. Facts: The plaintiff instituted action in the District Court of Gampaha seeking a declaration of title to the land described in Plan No. 256 (lots 1 and 4). Basis of title: Deed No. 1449 (10-05-1993) by which 2nd defendant sold land to Francis Paul Kingsley Dias, followed by Deed No. 7490 (09-07-1998) through which Dias’s heirs conveyed rights to the plaintiff. Defendants admitted executing Deed No. 1449 but claimed it was in fact a loan transaction secured by land (i.e., a mortgage). They further alleged the price was far below market value and ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Defendant raised no objection to the appeal. Having waved the right to object and having submitted to jurisdiction, he has for the first time raised the objection before this Court. He has cited the judgments in Ranaweera and other v. Sub-Inspector Wilson Siriwardena and others8 , Rodrigo v. Raymond9 and Nawinna Kottage Dona Lalitha Padmini and Another v. N.K.D. Pradeepa Nishanthi Kumari and Another10 in support of his contention. In W.G.T. Panikkiya v. W.G. Sedarama and others11 it has been observed that the District Judge is not bound to mechanically transmit an appeal filed out of time to the Court of Appeal. I am also of the view that he is entitled to consider whether it could be accepted and forwarded. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff cited the judgment in the Ceylon Brewery Limited v. Jax Fernando, Proprietor, Maradana Wine Stores12 where an application to set aside an ex-parte decree filed out of time came into consideration. This Court has held that the provisions which go into the jurisdiction must be strictly complied with. In Wickremasinghe v. De Silva13 the issue with regard to tendering a petition of appeal out of time came into consideration. Justice Soza in his judgment, has observed while graciously quoting Soertsz, J. “Such requirements must be put before the interests of individuals and Courts have no power to absolve from them” In De Silva v. Seenathumma14 it was held that the time limit in preferring an appeal should reasonably be complied with and Court has no power to absolve the party from failing to adhere to the peremptory requirements of the law. Article 138 of the Constitution confers the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to exercise appellate and revisionary jurisdiction. The said jurisdiction had been conferred to the Provincial High Court under Section 5A of the High Court of the Provinces (Special Provisions) (Amendment) Act No. 56 of 2007. Section 5A of the Act reads thus; ‘(1) A High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution for a Province, shall have and exercise appellate and revisionary jurisdiction in respect of judgments, decrees and orders delivered and made by any District Court, Family Court or Small Claims Court within such Province and the appellate jurisdiction for the correction of all errors in fact or in law, which shall be committed by any such of a District Court, of a Family Court or of a Small Claims Court, as the case may be. (2) The provisions of sections 23 to 27 of the Judicature Act, No. 2 of 1978 and sections 753 to 760 and sections 765 to 777 of the Civil Procedure Code and of any written law applicable to the exercise of the jurisdiction referred to in subsection (1) by the Court of Appeal, shall be read and construed as including a reference to a High Court established by Article 154P of the Constitution for a Province and any person aggrieved by any judgment, decree or order of a District Court, of a Family Court or of a Small Claims Court, as the case may be, within a Province, may invoke the jurisdiction referred to in that subsection, in the High Court established for that Province: Provided that no judgment or decree of a District Court, of a Family Court or of a Small Claims Court, as the case may be, shall be reversed or varied by the High Court on account of any error, defect or irregularity, which has not prejudiced the substantial rights of the parties or occasioned a failure of justice.’ Hence, the Civil Appellate High Court is vested with the jurisdiction to deal with appeals which initially vested with the Court of Appeal by Article 138 of the Constitution. The procedure in preferring an appeal to exercise the said jurisdiction is provided in the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, any failure in procedure in invoking the jurisdiction of the Civil Appellate High Court is not patent but latent lack of jurisdiction.

-
Image
Case Title: Wickramaarachchige Senani v. Mallawa Waduge Jayaratne Court: Supreme Court of Sri Lanka Judges: Janak De Silva J., Achala Wengappuli J., M. Sampath K. B. Wijeratne J. Date: 04 September 2025 Counsel: Shane Foster for Defendant–Respondent–Appellant; Shabbeer Huzair for Plaintiff–Appellant–Respondent. Facts Plaintiff advanced Rs. 375,000 to Defendant, secured by promissory note P1. Defendant defaulted. Plaintiff instituted action under summary procedure (CPC, Ch. LIII). Defendant admitted borrowing Rs. 250,000 but denied validity of P1, claiming his signature was on a blank stamped paper. District Court dismissed Plaintiff’s action citing non-compliance with s.68 Evidence Ordinance. On appeal, the Civil Appellate High Court set aside dismissal, holding s.68 inapplicable since promissory notes do not require attestation. Issues before Supreme Court Jurisdictional objection - Whether the appeal to Civil Appellate High Court was filed out of time (7 days late) and therefore inva...
Post a Comment
Read more

The judgment that prompted a CPC amendment. ******* the last paragraph of the Judgment is as follows.....................Before I part with this judgment, I feel obliged to point out the inordinate delay that always takes place in the final disposal of suits where the intervening right of appeal granted under 88(2) of the CPC is exercised. These appeals are also usually listed and taken up for argument along with other appeals, unless they are accelerated. To remedy this injustice, timely intervention by the legislature has now become necessary. The legislature therefore should take such a policy decision and lay down guidelines to enable the appellate courts to dispose of these appeals without much delay, as such appeals are relatively uncomplicated in nature, to facilitate the resolution of the substantial dispute. This may be achieved at least by prescribing a minimum time limit for the conclusion of such appeals or by granting priority towards their disposal over the other appeals of the Court of Appeal and the Provincial Civil Appellate High Courts. . PC 86(2)- RESULTANT DELAY BY REASON OF INTERVENING APPEALS-NEED TO REMEDY THE SITUATION-OBITER- FAILURE TO ADDUCE REASONS FOR THE DEFAULT- CONSEQUENCES

-
Image
PC 86(2)- RESULTANT DELAY BY REASON OF INTERVENING APPEALS-NEED TO REMEDY THE SITUATION-OBITER- FAILURE TO ADDUCE REASONS FOR THE DEFAULT- CONSEQUENCES . There is often inordinate delay in the final disposal of cases where the intervening right of appeal granted under Section 88(2) of the Civil Procedure Code is exercised. These appeals are typically listed and taken up together with the general body of appeals, unless specifically expedited. As a result, parties are left without timely resolution, creating a serious injustice. It has therefore become imperative for the legislature to intervene by adopting a clear policy framework and issuing guidelines that would enable appellate courts to dispose of such appeals expeditiously. Given that these appeals are relatively straightforward in nature, prioritizing them would significantly facilitate the resolution of the substantial dispute at hand. This objective may be achieved, at minimum, by prescribing a statutory time frame for the c...
Post a Comment
Read more

At the conclusion of a default inquiry Defendant sought to purge default under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming incapacity due to spinal injury from a fall. Applications to set aside ex-parte decrees must be supported by credible and consistent evidence. Courts retain discretion to assess the probative value of documents, even if admitted without objection or marked “subject to proof.”

-
Image
Civil Procedure Code, Sections 85 and 86(2), addresses ex parte decrees, applications to purge defaults, the burden of proof, and the evidential value of documents marked “subject to proof.” The Plaintiff instituted an action in the District Court of Negombo seeking cancellation of a deed, ejectment of the Defendant, and damages. Summons was duly served, but the Defendant failed to appear, resulting in an ex-parte decree. Upon service of the decree, the Defendant sought to purge default under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming incapacity due to spinal injury from a fall. The District Court rejected the application after considering contradictions in the Defendant’s testimony, inconsistencies among witnesses, and the inadequacy of the Ayurvedic medical certificate (produced subject to proof and unsupported by the physician’s testimony). The Provincial High Court affirmed. On further appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that: Applications to set aside ex-parte decrees mu...
Post a Comment
Read more

revision

-
  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA   In the matter of an Appeal in terms of Article 128 of the Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka.   SC Appeal No. 59/2021 SC Spl. LA 176/2021 CA Revision Application No: CA (PHC) APN 50/2021 HC Colombo Case No: HC 6256/2012   The Hon. Attorney General, Attorney General’s Department, Colombo 12.   Complainant   Vs.   Asselage Sujith Rupasinghe, No. 30/6, Nadun Uyana, Katukurundugasyaya, Mirigama.   Accused     AND BETWEEN     Mrs. P.M. Ranasinghe, 21B, Alfred Place, Colombo 3.   Aggrieved Party – Petitioner   Vs. 1.              Asselage Sujith Rupasinghe, No. 30/6, Nadun Uyana, Katukurundugasyaya, Mirigama.   Accused – Respondent ...
Post a Comment
Read more