GALLELAWBLOGGER

  An ex parte case is not a gift to the plaintiff. The defendant’s absence removes the opposition; it does not remove the plaintiff’s burden. The judge must still be satisfied, on the evidence placed before the Court, that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed. If there is no satisfactory evidence, the action must be dismissed. Main statutory basis Section 85(1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides that the plaintiff may place evidence before Court by affidavit or oral testimony and move for judgment, but the Court may enter judgment only “if satisfied that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed”, either fully or with modification. So the judge has a duty to look at the evidence. He is not a rubber stamp. Leading cases and principles 1. LOLC Factors Limited v. Airtouch International (Pvt) Ltd and Others SC/CHC/Appeal/20/2015, Supreme Court, decided on 03.04.2024 This is the most useful modern authority. The Supreme Court held that, under section 85(1), the plaint...

SLR 2004 Volume 2 Page 294 294 DISSANAYAKE V DISSANAYAKE AND OTHERS COURT OF APPEAL SOMAWANSA, J. MS. EKANAYAKE, J. C.ANO.962/2000(F) D.C.GAMPAHA28231/P MARCH 9, 26, 2004 Partition Law, 21 of 1977 section 12 - Ouster - Speculative purchaser - Evaluation of Evidence - Evidence Ordinance Section 3 - Section 50 -Relevancy - Opinion as to relationship - applicability - Co-owner's possession - Partition Act, No. 16 of 1951 - Sections 20, 25, 61 - Is the declaration under section 12 a procedural step only? Held "PerSomawansa, J. "While conceding that the learned District Judge has failedto evaluate the evidence placed before him on the question of prescriptive right of the contesting defendants, it appears that on an examination of totality of evidence, he has come to a correct finding." 295 (i) Section 25 of the Act makes it obligatory on the court to scrutinize, quite indepently of what may or may not do, the title of each party before any share is allotted to him. (ii) ...

  o.  Analysis of Ganeshan Samson Roy v. Janaka Marasinghe and Others Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, S.C. F/R N  405/2018 Decided on 20 September 2023 -  Judgment by B.P. Aluwihare, PC, J.; A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J. and Mahinda Samayawardhena, J. agreeing.   By a private party alleging that the petitioner had cheated him of Rs. 7 millio This is an important Fundamental Rights judgment on arbitrary arrest, abuse of criminal process, careless police investigation, private instigation of State power, and the constitutional limits of prosecutorial discretion. The case arose from a complaint made n on a supposed promise to import BMW vehicles. The Supreme Court found that the CID had acted without proper verification, that the complaint appeared false, and that the petitioner’s arrest was arbitrary and unlawful.   There is, however, one important drafting point in the judgment. In the body of the judgment, the Court holds that Article 13(2) was not established ...