SL Advocacy

In Barbara Iranganie De Silva and others v. Hewa Waduge Indralatha , the Defendant Respondent made an application under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code seeking to purge the default. The Plaintiff Appellant objected and the matter was fixed for inquiry. At the end of the inquiry, the District Court delivered Order on 09.05.2014. dismissing the Application to purge the default made by the Defendant Respondent.  The Defendant Respondent thereafter filed a “ notice of appeal “ against the said Order of the District Court dated 09.05.2014. She filed a Petition of Appeal (Final Appeal ) seeking to challenge the said Order. The Plaintiff Appellant submitted to the Civil Appellate High Court, whilst the Appeal was pending to be listed for hearing, by way of a Motion dated 06.02.2015 , seeking that the purported Final Appeal of the Defendant Respondent is liable to be rejected and dismissed in limine , having regard to the matters submitted by way of the said motion. The Plain

Appreciation of criminal evidence - few observations by apex courts Relevant provisions - Evidence Ordinance , Section 118 “All persons shall be competent to testify unless the Court considers that they are prevented from understanding the questions put to them, or from giving rational answers to those questions, by tender years, extreme old age, disease, whether of body or mind, or any other cause of the same kind”. Whenever a witness appears before Court, the Court will proceed on the basis that he is competent to testify. When a person of tender years or extreme old age or a person who suffers from disease or other abnormality of the body or mind, the Court is alert on the need to decide whether oath can be administered. Ordinarily this satisfaction is to be arrived at by preliminary examination of the witness by the Court. - AG v. Ramalingam Selvaratnam (C.A. Revision Application No. 09/2015 decided on 10.05.2016) Section 119 “A witness who is unable