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.

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 invalid.

Presentment for payment - Whether absence of proof of presentment of the promissory note vitiated Plaintiff’s claim under s.45 Bills of Exchange Ordinance.

Notice of dishonour -   Whether Plaintiff failed to comply with s.48 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance by not giving formal notice.

Held

Jurisdictional objection.

Although the appeal was filed late, the Defendant did not raise an objection before the High Court and thus waived his right to do so. Jurisdictional objection cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court.

Wickremasinghe v. De Silva; De Silva v. Seenathumma; Nawinna Kottage Dona Lalitha Padmini v. Pradeepa Kumari applied.

Appeal deemed properly entertained. -  Presentment of promissory note - Promissory notes are subject to provisions of Bills of Exchange Ordinance (s.91).

Strict physical presentment is not required where the debtor acknowledges liability.

Defendant’s admissions (signature on note, quarrel over payment, request for time to pay) and failure to reply to letter of demand (P2) constituted acknowledgment of debt.

Pedro Pulle v. Mu. Ku.; Saravanamuttu v. De Mel; Seneviratne v. Orix Leasing cited.

Notice of dishonour 

NNotice does not have to be in writing; oral communication is sufficient (s.49).

Defendant was both drawer and drawee; under s.50(2)(c)(i), notice of dishonour is not required.

The plaintiff’s demand for payment, along with the Defendant’s request for additional time, constituted sufficient notice.

Principles of Law.

Waiver of Jurisdictional Objection: 

Failure to object to late filing of appeal at earliest stage amounts to waiver; cannot be raised belatedly before Supreme Court.

PPromissory Notes & Evidence Ordinance: Promissory notes do not require attestation as documents under s.68 of the Evidence Ordinance.

Signature on Blank Document: 

Signing blank documents carries the presumption of authority to complete; the caveat subscriptor principle applies.

Presentment & Notice: 

Requirements under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance may be excused where the debtor acknowledges liability; silence in commercial correspondence may be treated as admission.

Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs in District Court, Civil Appellate High Court, and Supreme Court.

High Court judgment in favour of Plaintiff affirmed.

READ JUDGMENT "CLICK"