SL Advocacy

Civil Procedure Code - dismissal of an action by the Plaintiff on the failure to take steps as ordered by Court - validity. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF  SRI LANKA Seylan Bank Limited  v.  W.D. Mulacharigedara Swarnathilakeand others C.A. APPLICATION NO.1385/2005 Before    :-      L.K. Wimalachandra, J                        Eric Basnayake, J. Counsel  :-     Ranjan Nayakaratne for the Plaintiff-Petitioner                       Defendant-Respondents are absent and unrepresented Decided on          :-     10.01.2007 L.K. Wimalachandra, J The plaintiff-petitioner has filed this application in revision from the orders of the District Judge of Horana dated 06.05.2005 and 3.06.2005. By the order dated 6.5.2005, the learned District Judge had dismissed the plaintiffs action on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to take steps to effect the substitution in place of the deceased 1st defendant.  Thereafter the plaintiff-pe

It was held in this judgment that, Section 88 (1) only prohibits an appeal against an ex parte judgment by the party whose default resulted in that ex parte judgment. Section 88 (1) does not apply to the right of appeal of a party who was not in default since there was no default on the part of that party which resulted in the ex parte judgment which he wishes to appeal against. In other words, the right of the party who was not in default to appeal against the ex parte judgment, is unaffected by Section 88 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code.  Civil Procedure Code, Ss: 87, 88, 754 - default - ex parte trial - appeal against that order - maintainability of that appeal

Law of Evidence - Sec. 154 of the Evidence Ordinance -adverse witness - evaluation - witness was  remanded by the Judge - fair trial  " Eliciting evidence from witnesses by remanding affects fair trial. In this case the trial judge had abused his power when he remanded the witness. Remanding a witness whenever it appeared to the court that he is not desirous of speaking the 'truth creates such an adverse impact on the integrity of the proceedings that the accused's conviction could no longer be regarded as (morally) safe. It is difficult to think of even a hypothetical-illustration." IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST  REPUBLIC OF  SRI LANKA Ranasinghe Arachchilage Edmun Perera v.  Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka CA 267/06  Before   :-    Rohini Marasinghe, J.                      Deepali Wijesundera, J. Decided on :-  28.03.2013 Rohini Marasinghe, J . The accused/appellant was convicted fo

Evidence of the eye witness - evaluation - duty of the State Counsel  It was observed by the Court in this case, that a State Counsel who prosecutes a criminal matter is not a mouth piece of the victim. It is not his role to secure a conviction at any cost, but rather acting on behalf of the 'minister of justice' to seek and obtain a fair verdict, making disclosures of all material evidence pertaining to the matter before the Court, irrespective of whether that evidence favours the appellant or is against the appellant. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST  REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA Oliver Dayananda Kalansuriya Raja v Attorney General SC. Appeal No.144/2013   Before:       Hon. Justice W.P.G. Dep PC.                     Hon. Justice Rohini Marasinghe                     Hon. Justice B.Aluwihare PC.      Counsel:    Anil Silva PC with Manoj Nanayakkara for  Accused/Appellant.                    Dappula De Livera ASG for

Cruelty to Animals Act -  confiscation of a vehicle - duty of the Magistrate IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF  SRI LANKA Mallika Arachchige Sherly George Godwin Perera v.  OIC, Police Station, Nochchiyagama CA (PHC) 126/2006 BEFORE - W.M.M. Malinie Gunaratne, J. and                     P.R. Walgama, J. Counsel - Gamini Hettiarachchi for the Appellant                  Anoopa de Silva, SSC for the Respondent Decided on 18.12.2015 Malinie Gunaratne, J. The Applicant-Petitioner-Appellant (hereinafter called and referred to as the Appellant) has preferred this Appeal to challenge the propriety of the Judgment pronounced by the learned High Court Judge of Anuradhapura, dated 26.04.2006, which dismissed the application made to the said High Court to revise the Order of the learned Magistrate Anuradhapura, dated 05.07.2005. The facts that have given rise to the present application are briefly as follows:  One